DEVIANT BEHAVIOR AMONG YOUNG ADULTS: TURKISH CASE WITH AN
EMPHASIS ON FAMILY RITUALS, SELF-ESTEEM AND RELIGIOSITY
Ismail Dincer Gunes, B.A., MSCJ
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
May 2008
APPROVED:
Rudy Ray Seward, Major Professor
James L. Williams, Minor Professor
Cynthia Cready, Committee Member
Milan Z. Zafirovski, Committee Member
Halil Ibrahim Bahar, Committee Member
Dale E. Yeats, Chair of the Department of
Sociology
Thomas L. Evenson, Dean of the College of
Public Affairs and Community Service
Sandra L Terrell, Dean of the Robert B.
Toulouse School of Graduate Studies
Gunes, Ismail Dincer, Deviant behavior among young adults: Turkish case with
an emphasis on family rituals, self-esteem and religiosity. Doctor of Philosophy
(Sociology), May 2008, 174 pp., 20 tables, 1 illustration, references, 318 titles.
The conduct of young adults has long been a concern in societies. The primary
objective of this study was to gain greater understanding of what influences the deviant
behavior of young adults in Turkey. Factors assessed in their background included
family rituals, self-esteem, religiosity and deviant behavior. It was expected that levels of
family rituals, religiosity, self-esteem and other risk factors would be significantly
different between incarcerated youth and youth not incarcerated. Overall, these higher
levels of family rituals, religiosity, and self-esteem plus lower levels of other risk factors
were expected to negatively affect young people’s engagement in deviant behavior in
Turkey.
Walter Reckless’ containment theory provided a framework for this study. The
non-probability sample of Turkish youths consisted of 205 incarcerated respondents
and 200 college students. Each responded to four survey instruments, the Family
Rituals Questionnaire, the Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory, the Religious
Background and Behavior Questionnaire, and a Family Information Inventory. Data
were gathered cross-sectionally from January through March of 2007.
The incarcerated respondents significantly practices less family rituals and had
lower levels of religiosity than the college students but they did not differ significantly on
self-esteem. Furthermore, overall participation in family rituals was associated with
decreased likelihood of committing deviant behavior. Religiosity, which was measured
by expression of a God consciousness and performance of formal religious practices,
had mixed results. While having a God consciousness decreased the likelihood of
committing deviant behavior, performing formal religious practices increased the
likelihood of committing deviant behavior. Moreover, higher levels of self-esteem played
no significant role in reducing deviant behavior.
No significant support was found for Reckless’ emphasis on the role of inner
containment as an element of social control. However, support was found for the outer
containment variable of family rituals playing a significant role in reducing deviant
behavior for the respondents. Future research should further explore the role of family
rituals, self-esteem and religiosity as well as other relevant risk factors in explaining
deviant behavior through longitudinal research designs.
Copyright 2008
by
Ismail Dincer Gunes
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not be possible without the scholarship awarded by the Turkish
General Directorate of Security. I would like to thank Dr. Rudy R. Seward, for his
encouragement and support. I also thank Drs. James Williams, Cynthia Cready, Milan
Zafirovski, Halil Ibrahim Bahar, and Joanne E. Roberts for their time and assistance in
directing this study.
Furthermore, I would like to extend my thanks to my colleagues Ahmet Yurdaer,
Sinan Ulkemen, Huseyin Cinoglu, and Mustafa Kayaoglu for their support and help in
completing this study.
I would also like to thank my parents Durmus and Fadime, my sister Zeynep, and
my brother Alpaslan for their encouragement, patience and assistance in my education
and career.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my wife Hanife, and to my children
Azra and Muzaffer. Thank you for your love and I am appreciative of the sacrifices you
made.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................vii
Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Significance of the Study
Research Questions
Hypotheses
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUALIZATION ............................. 9
Theoretical Framework
Major Concepts
Deviant Behavior
Rituals
Self-Esteem
Religiosity
Risk Factors
Conclusion
3. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 67
Data and Data Collection
Sample
Survey Instruments
Variables
Techniques of Data Analysis
Conclusion
4. DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................. 95
Demographic Characteristics
Regression Analysis
Conclusion
5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 115
Discussion of Hypotheses
iv
Limitations of the Present Study
Policy Recommendations
Recommendation for Future Research
APPENDIX A: FAMILY RITUALS QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................. 131
APPENDIX B: CULTURE-FREE SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY ................................. 140
APPENDIX C: RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND AND BEHAVIOR .................................. 143
APPENDIX D: FAMILY INFORMATION INVENTORY................................................ 145
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 152
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Dimensions of Family Rituals ....................................................................... 35
Table 2:
Distribution of Respondents by City ............................................................. 69
Table 3:
Instruments................................................................................................... 73
Table 4:
Settings of the Family Rituals Questionnaire................................................ 76
Table 5:
Dimensions of the Family Rituals Questionnaire .......................................... 78
Table 6:
Classification of Self-Esteem Scores............................................................ 80
Table 7:
Distribution of Delinquent Behavior by Crime Categories............................. 86
Table 8:
Revised Personal Self-Esteem Scale Items ................................................. 88
Table 9:
Factor Loadings of Rotated Factors on Family Rituals Questionnaire.......... 90
Table 10: Religious Background and Behavior Components ....................................... 91
Table 11: Correlation Matrix of RBB Measures ............................................................ 92
Table 12: Demographics and Family Information Inventory Variables ......................... 98
Table 13: Demographics and Family Information Inventory Variables Continued ...... 100
Table 14: Demographics and Family Information Inventory Variables Continued ...... 102
Table 15: FRQ, Revised Personal Subscale and RBB Variables............................... 104
Table 16: Deviant Behavior Variables ........................................................................ 106
Table 17: Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables .............................................. 109
Table 18: Logistic Regression Estimates for Deviant Behavior in Turkey. ................. 110
Table 19: Logistic Regression Estimates for Deviant Behavior among Incarcerated
Respondents in Turkey. ............................................................................. 112
Table 20: Logistic Regression Estimates for Deviant Behavior among College
Students in Turkey. .................................................................................... 113
vi
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1: Conceptual Structure of the Research Model................................................... 8
vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The concept of crime has been a part of all societies. In almost all societies,
deviance acts considered to be crimes have been categorized according to the
characteristics of the offenders. For example, age is one of the most important factors
that affect the definition of such deviance acts. In this respect, the deviant acts
committed by juveniles have been the focus of special attention.
Juveniles who commit such serious deviant acts are kept in separate facilities
away from their families. However, in terms of the socialization process, family is
accepted as the most important social institution. Hence, keeping the “criminal”
juveniles away from their families will significantly affect their socialization process.
Under these circumstances, the costs of crime include both the lives of the offenders
and those of victims. So, a society must find ways to keep its members in a healthy
socialization process, especially the juveniles who are the future of that society.
According to Yavuzer (1994), “the most important factor that distinguishes
juvenile delinquency from adult crimes is the social, psychological and biological
transition process that these individuals go though at these specific ages” (p. 33). The
problems that are faced by the juveniles and adolescents in this transition period will
more likely affect their future lives.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines an adolescent as a person
between 10 and 19 years of age. On the other hand, a juvenile is legally defined almost
all around the world as a person less than 18 years of age. Although Turkish Criminal
law has no legal definition for young adults, criminals between the ages of 18 and 21 to
1
are kept in separate places from criminals who are older than 21 years of age.
Supporting this policy, in a recent study Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, and
Miller-Johnson (2002) also defined young adulthood as a stage of life trajectory
between the ages of 18 and 21. On the other hand, Erikson (1950) defined young adult
as a person between the ages of 19 and 40. According to Jesser, Donovan and Costa
(1994), “unlike entry into adolescence, where there are clear biological demarcations,
becoming a young adult is determined largely by social processes and personal
definitions related to roles” (p. 398).
In the present study the ages of the respondents range from 13 to 21, so this
study focuses on the adolescents and young adults in Turkey. However, the average
age of the respondents is 17.8, so it would be possible to say that an extended
definition of the term young adult will be used in the present study. Even though there is
a slight difference between the actual definition and the current use of the term in the
present study, the term young adult will be used through the study to keep the
discussion simple and consistent.
Essentially, the present study is about the deviant behaviors of adolescents and
young adults in Turkey with a special emphasis on the effects of family rituals, selfesteem, and religiosity. This will be done through a partial replication of the prior
research by Emmett (2000) and Roberts (2002) conducted in the United States.
The primary objective of this dissertation research is to try to extend knowledge
about the deviant behavior of young adults, through using recently gathered data from
young adults in Turkey on their background including family rituals, self-esteem,
religiosity and deviant behavior. Secondly, the results from the analysis of these data
2
will also be compared to United States data already gathered from young adults on
these aspects and reported by Roberts (2002) and Emmett (2000).
This problem, the conduct of young adults, has long been a concern for different
societies (Burgess, 1926). Their challenges to tradition and violent behavior have often
been attributed to the declining influence of the family (Popenoe, 1993). The family’s
declining influence has been associated with shifting cultural values, and many contend,
disintegrating societal standards (Adams, 1995). William J. Goode (1963), in his classic,
World Revolutions and Family Patterns, described the emergence of families that would
have less influence over individuals. These changes were most evident in western
industrialized nations but a good deal of evidence suggests they were happening
worldwide. Despite different baselines and varied rates, amounts, and directions of
change between nations, Goode (1963) found evidence that a convergence process
was occurring worldwide. Families were becoming more democratic, smaller, less
stable, and more diverse and individuals were becoming more independent of family
influence. Yet the importance of families’ influence on children’s development is still
recognized (Lamb, 2004).
Studies are needed to assess the extent to which families influence the lives of
children after they are young adults (Russell & Hwang, 2004). In this light, the concept
of family culture affords insights into the dynamics of families and the conduct of young
adults (Seward, 1994). Family members teach, interpret, and enforce cultural
expectations. In the process, families develop a unity that is more than a sum of the
interacting personalities. This unity is a social group bounded by culture, a microcosm of
the society's culture. Every family’s unique culture consists of the interrelated norms
3
shared by its participants, including their common values, rules, rituals, religious beliefs,
and expectations. Together these define the family's boundaries and direct its members'
conduct.
The current ambiguity, conflicting contentions, and ongoing changes with regard
to being a young adult mean that for most individuals identity is problematic.
Earlier views and routines are being questioned. The resulting reflection,
negotiation, and reappraisal by families and young adults expose the interplay
between motivation, behavior, and social structure. Transitions are critical times
both for young people’s identity development, into adults and for cultural
definitions of adulthood. (Seward, 2007, p. 9)
Studying the details of young people’s families, through previously gathered data,
will assess how family rituals, self-esteem, (Roberts, 2002) and religiosity (Emmett,
2000) contribute to a better understanding of young people’s conduct.
Significance of the Study
There are at least two potentially significant contributions of this study to the
literature on family and deviant behavior. First of all, replicating a combination of two
previously conducted studies in the United States (Emmet 2000, Roberts 2002) in
Turkey will provide a test of their findings in a very different society. As a part of this
test, two research instruments will be introduced into Turkish research. Specifically, this
study will be the first thesis or dissertation to have used the Family Rituals
Questionnaire and the Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory - 2 in Turkey.
A detailed search conducted at the Turkish Higher Education Council’s Center for
Thesis and Dissertation Research revealed that these two instruments have never been
4
used in a thesis or dissertation in Turkey. The center has a collection of all theses and
dissertations that have been submitted to Turkish Universities since 1987.
Unfortunately, in Turkey, juvenile delinquency has received insufficient
theoretical attention (Golcuklu, 1962; Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006; Taskiran & Agaoglu, 1943;
Turk Kriminoloji Enstitusu, 1953; Ulugtekin, 1991; and Yavuzer, 1981). Due to Turkey’s
unique sociocultural environment, the present study, guided by a social control
perspective, will make a significant contribution to the literature.
Family and religion are the most trustworthy social institutions in Turkey
(Erguder, Esmer, & Kalaycioglu, 1991). Ozbay and Ozcan (2006) elaborated on the
effects of these institutions on juveniles. They summarized that the two main reasons
that families still exercise strong control over juveniles are the lack of strong
individualism among juveniles and financial dependence on the family through college
graduation.
Similarly, environmental factors such as schools and neighbors still exercise
relatively strong control over juveniles. Furthermore, strong conformist traditions and
relatively higher levels of religiosity are other factors that contribute to preventing
juvenile delinquent acts (Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006).
A second possible significant contribution would be in the field of comparative
studies. To better understand and/or differentiate among the patterns that different
cultures have, comparative studies stand out on the list as the best approach. The
comparative approach to the study of society has a long tradition. Indeed, the use of
comparative analysis has been an integral element of sociological thought since the
5
discipline's classical era, with the works of Durkheim (1817) and Weber (1905) providing
premier examples.
The original partially replicated studies were conducted in the United States.
Collecting similar data on the same variables in Turkey will impact the understanding of
the differences between two societies. Since the present study compares data on two
different nations, this cross-national study conforms to Kohn’s (1989) category of nation
as context of study. It is the most powerful type of comparative research in the sense
that it allows comparisons of distributions and, more importantly, patterns of covariation
among variables measured at the individual or other intrasocietal level across societies.
This allows for an assessment of whether society makes a difference in these patterns
(Kohn, 1989). In that sense, the present study will provide another opportunity to
explore and understand the issues related to the cross-national research designs.
Beside these contributions, a possible outcome of the present study would be the
long term development objective of improved well-being for children and families by
suggesting ways to improve family relationships. Providing families more and better
opportunities to be involved with their children has been shown to enhance children’s
socio-emotional development and conformity (Rohner & Veneziano, 2001). Positive
interaction between a parent and child promotes a child’s physical well-being,
perceptual abilities, and mutually supportive relationships with others (Hwang & Lamb,
1997). When children have a close and warm relationship with their parents, their
cognitive, sex-role, and psycho-social developments are enhanced (Lamb, 2004). When
parents get more involved with their children, they also enhance their own well-being
and other family relationships (Palkovitz, 2002). Information from the study should help
6
family members and professionals who work with families to better understand and deal
with young adulthood.
Research Questions
Related to the research objectives, this dissertation will address two basic
questions.
1. How do the relationships between family rituals, self-esteem, religiosity, and
young people’s deviant behavior compare between incarcerated and non-incarcerated
young adults in Turkey?
2. How do young people’s family rituals, religiosity, and self-esteem affect their
engagement in deviant behavior?
Hypotheses
In this study, two hypotheses are developed to test the relationships that are
based on the theoretical framework, the literature review, and the research objectives.
These hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1:
Family rituals, religiosity, self-esteem and other risk factors will
be significantly different between non-incarcerated respondents
and incarcerated respondents in Turkey.
Hypothesis 2a:
Family rituals, self-esteem and religiosity are positively related
to each other in Turkey (see Figure 1).
Hypothesis 2b:
Family rituals, self-esteem and religiosity negatively affect
young people’s engagement in deviant behavior in Turkey (see
Figure 1).
7
Family
Rituals
-
+
+
Self-esteem
+
Deviant
Behavior
-
-
Religiosity
Figure 1. Conceptual structure of the research model.
In order to present different aspects of the problem at hand, the dissertation was
organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the research problem.
How researchers conceptualize and operationalize variables significantly affect the
outcome of the research, and these two linked processes are presented in Chapter 2
and Chapter 3 respectively. The conceptualization process is presented in Chapter 2.
Two main sections of the second chapter are the theoretical framework and major
concepts. Operationalization of the present study is provided in Chapter 3 through the
presentation of methodological considerations such as; the research design,
participants, survey instruments and techniques of data analysis. Chapter 4 contains the
results of the data analysis. The final chapter discusses the results of the data as they
relate to the stated hypotheses, identifies the limitations of the study, and suggests
areas for further research.
8
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUALIZATION
The purpose of this section is to provide a detailed discussion of the theoretical
framework and the other major concepts that are utilized in this study. In the first part of
the chapter a detailed discussion of the control theory tradition is presented. This is
followed by a discussion of major concepts. This section starts with a detailed
discussion of deviant behavior, followed by a discussion of family rituals, self-esteem,
and religiosity. Finally, a detailed discussion of other related risk factors will also be
presented.
Theoretical Framework
Although social control is a major concept in the sociology of deviance, it has
also always been an integral part of general sociology. “Originally, the concept was
defined broadly as any structure, process, relationship, or act that contributes to the
social order” (Liska, 1997, p. 39). We need to explain characteristics that distinguish
between two types of social control processes.
According to Cullen and Agnew (1999, p. 161) sociological explanations of
deviant behavior [the authors used the word “crime”] have been dominated by three
main traditions: social structural, social processing, and social control theories. The
focus of this study is the social control theory tradition.
Social control theories make the opposite assumptions to those made by both
social structural and social processing theories (Einstadter & Henry, 2006). In essence,
while social structural and social processing theories seek to explain the motivation of
criminal and deviant behavior, social control theories are concerned with why people
9
obey the rules and laws that regulate society (Anderson & Dyson, 2002). Social control
theories rest upon the compliance of every person in society with shared standards of
conduct (Horowitz, 1990).
The social control theory tradition is perhaps the most prominent criminological
theoretical tradition (Anderson & Dyson, 2002). In a recent study Stitt and Giacopassi
(1992) identified social control theories as the most widely used and tested theories to
explain adolescent rule-breaking behavior in criminology. Moreover, survey data from
American criminologists revealed that social control theories are the most popular
theory of crime and delinquency (Agnew, 2003).
In general, social control theory asserts that some youths conform to norms in
response to certain forces that control and regulate human behavior (Hirschi, 1969;
Nagasawa, Qian, & Wong, 2000). The social control theories focus on restraints and
assume that delinquency will occur unless prevented by strong social controls. The
focus of social control theories is on strategies that regulate human behavior toward
conformity to society's rules (Hirschi, 1969; Reckless, 1973b). Specifically, the theories
target the influence of the family, school, moral values, and peers on controlling
behavior.
One basic distinction is between internal and external control processes. “The
internal control refers to a process whereby people adhere to social norms because
they believe in them, feeling good, self-righteous, and proud when they do adhere to
them and feeling bad, self-critical, and guilty when they do not” (Liska, 1997, p. 39).
Liska (1997) also stated that socialization is another term to define this process.
10
According to Liska and Messner (1999) the internal process is weakened by normative
conflicts, cultural change, and social mobility.
Liska (1997) also defined external control as:
a social process whereby people conform to norms or rules because they are
rewarded with status, prestige, money, and freedom when they do adhere to
them and are punished with the loss of them when they do not. This process is
sometimes termed coercive, external, or just social control. (p. 39)
Liska and Messner (1999) also stated that external control is weakened by cultural
conflicts and a lack of primary relationships.
Roberts (2002) summarized four basic assumptions of control theories as
follows:
First, social control theories assume that all humans have the propensity to be
deviant. Second, if deviance is normal, then some controls are necessary to hold
it in check. Third, delinquency or deviance assumes the absence of some sort of
control mechanism(s). Finally, it is assumed that there is a societal consensus
about expected norms and values. Therefore, the essence of control theories is
that during socialization, there are weak personal or weak social control factors
that contribute to delinquency. (p. 40)
Among different social control theories, Walter Reckless’ (1961) containment
theory will be the primary theory used to explore the relationships between the research
variables. The research concepts of “Family Rituals”, “Self-Esteem”, and “Religiosity”
will be used along with other concepts to conduct this study focusing on Reckless’
containment theory. Even though the present study does not test Reckless’ containment
11
theory, it uses this theory to guide the research. Beside Roberts’ (2002) research, which
will be replicated in this study, Bynum (2000) and Miles (2001) used Reckless’
containment theory as their theoretical framework. Furthermore, two recent studies by
Costello and Dunaway (2003) and Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Paternoster (2004) used
or referred to this theory.
Social Control Theory Tradition
In their discussion of control theories, Cullen and Agnew (1999) stated that, even
though Shaw and McKay are accepted as the pioneers of the tradition of control
theories by linking the degree of control to neighborhoods, Hirschi’s (1969) social bond
theory is the most well-known statement using this perspective. As Anderson and
Dyson, (2002) put it; Hirschis’ work was mainly influenced by the writings of Durkheim,
Reiss and Nye, Reckless, and Sykes and Matza. In fact the origins of social control
theories can be traced far back to Durkheim’s concept of anomie.
Durkheim is arguably the pioneer of social control theory (Anderson & Dyson,
2002). According to Durkheim (1897), rapid changes in the structure of society, such as
transformation from an agricultural society to an industrial society, a feudal system to a
capitalist system, have caused anomie within the society. Anomie does not only mean
normlessness, but also the collapse of social solidarity. While the traditional way of life
was changing to modern life, or in other words, while mechanical solidarity was
dissolving, the regulations of the traditional norms and values lost their effect on
individuals.
However, for Durkheim (1897) the collective conscience of society and the
integration among individuals weakened and led to individualism in urban areas.
12
However, during the transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, the bonds
between the individuals and their loyalty to the norms and values of the society weaken.
For Durkheim, increasing rates of deviance are the consequence of anomie, which is
the result of rapid social change.
Merton (1938) basically developed further Durkheim’s theory of anomie that
traces its source to the breakdown of social structure and introduced his famous model
whereby social institutions in their normal operation are the source of anomie.
Furthermore, Merton (1968) also sees deviance as a method of adaptation to social
structure.
Merton (1938) argues that anomie is a consequence of the double faceted
structure whereby normal social institutions are functional for certain sub-groups, and at
the same time dysfunctional for a certain segment of the population. Merton adopts the
anomie concept as part of his effort to suggest that biological explanations of deviant
behavior are inadequate to explain social reality and that, instead, structural conditions
should be considered as inducing deviation from prescribed patterns of conduct
(Featherstone & Deflem, 2003). To illustrate his theory of anomie, Merton (1968) argues
that social disorder occurs when society or the social structure holds high ideals of
values for all its members, yet some members of that society are structurally barred
from living up to those ideals.
The question that Durkheim (1897) and Merton (1968) were trying to answer was
“why do individuals commit crime?” However, as stated before, social control theorists
tried to explain why people don't become deviant especially when opportunities exist
and there is peer pressure to commit deviant acts (Shoemaker, 2005).
13
The influence of the Chicago school showed itself in every contemporary
criminological theory, including the social control theories. The Chicago theorists
applied an ecological perspective to study the patterns of deviance in physical space in
the city of Chicago. This was a macro level approach in which the causes of human
conduct were basically explained by all factors external to the individual. The core
argument of their ecological theory maintains that “ecological conditions associated with
urban life disrupt traditional social control, thereby promoting unconventional and
deviant behavior” (Liska & Messner, 1999, p. 58).
More precisely speaking, “when the concept of social disorganization was
introduced it was considered to be the underlying condition that explained the
convergence of a variety of forms of deviant conduct in identifiable ecological territories”
(Jensen, 2003, p. 3). Burgess’s (1925) concentric zones theory is a good example for its
attempts to examine the overlapping patterns between the environment and both
deviant and non-deviant human conduct. This also accepted an examination of the link
between the environment and the culture.
Social disorganization theory was applied to the explanation of crime,
delinquency and other social problems by sociologists at the University of Chicago in
the early 1900s. It basically attributes high rates of deviance to weak conventional
institutions that are unable to exert much control over people.
Influenced by these arguments, Shaw and McKay attempted to link the degree of
control to neighborhoods, where the stress was on the idea of social disorganization.
Shaw and McKay (1942) used the term social disorganization to describe
“neighborhoods in which control had weakened and criminal traditions rivaled
14
conventional institutions” (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2007, p. 41). They believed that juvenile
delinquency could be understood only by considering the social context in which youths
lived.
Borrowing heavily from Burgess’ (1925) concentric zone theory, Shaw and
McKay (1942) confirmed that delinquency flourished in the zone in transition and it was
inversely related to the zone’s affluence and corresponding distance from the central
business district. In particular, youths who lived in the socially disorganized
neighborhood were more vulnerable to engaging in deviant behavior. Although Shaw
and McKay (1942) contributed to social control theories, their focus was on the
neighborhoods which were marked by a lack of social control, and furthermore, are
related to social control theories through their description of how weakening controls
lead to delinquency.
Following the same tradition, Reiss (1951) proposed the theory of “Personal and
Social Controls”, suggesting that delinquency occurred in juveniles as a result of
personal and social failures. Reiss (1951) defined self control as “the ability of the
individual to refrain from meeting in ways which conflict with the norms and rules of the
community” (p. 196), while he conceptualized social control as “the ability of social
groups or institutions to make norms or rules effective” (p. 196). According to Reiss
(1951), conformity can be a result of either the acceptance of rules, or submission to
those rules.
Instead of trying to identify the causes of delinquency, Reiss (1951) aimed to
develop an instrument to predict delinquent behavior. If he could identify the factors that
occur prior to delinquent behavior, it would be easier to predict it. For Reiss (1951) the
15
chief concern with respect to predictors was failure to submit to social controls, the
“why” of such action being less important.
Similarly, Nye (1958) proposed that criminal behavior should be more common
when we consider that goals can be achieved more easily and more quickly through
criminal acts when compared to normative behavior. So, even though complying with
normative behavior seems more problematic, in that sense, why is criminal behavior
less common in society? For Nye (1958), instead of looking for positive factors that
cause criminal behavior, it is more meaningful to view crime as the result of ineffective
social control. When there is ineffective social control, criminal behavior is the available
way to achieve those goals faster and easier.
According to Nye (1958), family, one of the primary groups, is the most effective
driving force of social control over adolescents. Family can generate four categories of
social control that he believed would prevent juvenile delinquency. These categories of
social control are: direct control, indirect control, internalized control, and control
through alternative means of need satisfaction. Direct control is imposed through
punishments or restraints by external forces, which have the ability to influence
individuals’ behaviors. These external forces can be stated as the parents, teachers, or
the police. Indirect control is the “extent of affection and identification integrating the
individual with authority figures in general and parent in particular” (Nye, 1958, p. 26).
Internalized control occurs if an individual can limit his/her actions without considering
the level of direct control. Control through alternative means of need satisfaction occurs
when the social system presents a variety of legitimate ways to decrease the attraction
to nonconformity.
16
Nye (1958) claims that even though varying types of social control operate
independently, they have a cumulative effect over individual’s behavior. In Durkheim’s
terms, the combination of integration and regulation decreases the risk of
nonconformity.
Reckless’ Containment Theory
Walter C. Reckless began developing a containment theory in 1956 by “focusing
on a youth’s self conception as an insulator against delinquency” (Jensen, 2003a, p. 3).
He elaborated on Reiss and Nye’s internal and external concepts, expanding control
theory by introducing containment theory. While Nye (1958) focused on family,
Reckless (1973b) tried to find an answer to a similar question by focusing on youth in
disorganized areas. Reckless (1973b) asked the question why some youth in
disorganized areas did not become delinquent. Like Durkheim (1897), he believed that
historical transformation caused individualism. Thus, self-factors may explain delinquent
behavior. His search for self-factors, led him to focus on individuals and finally he
proposed his containment theory.
Reckless (1961) proposed containment theory, which explains “delinquency as
the interplay between two forms of control known as inner (internal) and outer (external)
containments” (DeMelo, 1999, p. 24). Reckless' basic premise was that the
psychological (internal) and social (external) factors work together to contribute to
conforming behavior. According to this perspective “every individual has a containing
external structure and a protective internal structure. Both of these structures buffer,
protect, and insulate an individual against delinquency” (DeMelo, 1999, p. 24).
17
According to Reckless (1961) inner containments, which are self components, are more
important than outer containments, which are one’s social environment.
According to the conceptual structure of Reckless’ containment theory, there are
pushes from within the individual, such as: resentment, hostility and anger, along with
outer pulls, such as: poverty, discrimination, and association with gang members that
push or pull individuals to commit delinquent behavior. These internal and external
forces “produce delinquent behavior unless they are counteracted by containment”
(Kelley, 1996, p. 327). Delinquent behavior or crime is highly likely to occur, if the
motivations of deviant acts are strong and containment is weak (International
Encyclopedia of Justice Studies, 2007).
“Individualization of the self” was one of Reckless’ (1973b) primary foci. For him,
self was not important in primitive societies. With the division of labor in the society, new
alternatives were presented to the individuals. Finally, individuals took differing identities
as a consequence of the large number of choices that they have (Reckless, 1973b).
Furthermore, he suggested that while internal factors push an individual toward crime,
external factors pull him/her toward deviance. He emphasizes that not only are external
factors important for understanding nonconformity, but also internal factors should be
taken into account. To clarify his point of view on internal factors, he uses the analogy of
malaria. Even under extreme exposure to malaria, not everybody does get it and their
resistance level differs (Reckless, 1973b).
Containment theory attempts to explain conforming behavior as well as
delinquency (Reckless, 1973b). According to Reckless, there are two dimensions of
containment: inner containment and outer containment. Although the two dimensions
18
are separated by definition, they are very much interrelated. His classification of “inner
containment” as pulling factors toward crime and “outer containment” as pushing factors
is crucial to understanding his theoretical framework. The focal point of inner
containment is on one’s self-concept, and the focal point for outer containment is on the
various social institutions with which individuals come in contact (Reckless, 1973a).
Reckless (1973a) furthermore states that:
We are interested in the influence of certain institutions (outer containment) but
only as the individual's attitudes and perceptions toward these institutions are
incorporated into the individual's attitudes toward self (inner containment). In
other words, an individual's self-concept is in part made up of his perceptions of
the environment and institutional structures therein. (p. 195)
The variation in responses of individuals is due to the different possibilities of
balance between inner and outer containment. Thus, Reckless viewed control theory
both personal and social. However, he preferred to focus on inner containment rather
than focusing on outer containment.
Outer Containment
According to Reckless (1973b), in different types of societies the factors which
bind individuals to the group show variation. However, he emphasizes three of them;
¾ “Reasonable limits,
¾ Meaningful; roles and activities, and
¾ Several complementary variables such as reinforcement by groups and
significant supportive relationships, acceptance, [and] the creation of a sense
of belonging and identity” (Lilly, 2006, p. 89).
19
Also, successful family life, membership in organizations, interest in the activities
of the community, and good peers are the characteristics of external containment.
Reckless (1973b), claims that “if a group or organization can get its members to
internalize their rules, it would be doing an excellent job of containing” (p. 470).
However, poverty, conflict, minority group status, external restrains, limited excess to
opportunities, attraction and distractions are the pulls in that society which lead
individual to deviant behavior (Reckless, 1973b). Outer containment is apparent in both
tribal communities and strong religious populations. In individualized modern societies,
there is less containment particularly for adolescents. Limits of behavior are not well
defined; roles are less definite, which finally generates lower frustration tolerance levels
(Reckless, 1973b).
Inner Containment
According to Reckless (1973b), successful acquisition of a society's rules
regarding acceptable behavior is a prerequisite for the development of inner
containment. Although the social environment, or in other words external factors, may
have effect on individual’s behavior, those factors should be filtered by the individual
(Hogan & Mookherjee, 1981). Thus, a good self-concept is believed to be the main
preventative factor of deviant behavior (Shoemaker, 2005). According to Reckless
(1973b), individuals who have strong inner containment carry a good self-concept, a
well-developed superego, ego strength, and a high frustration tolerance. Also external
factors, such as the family, should help the individual develop these factors. As the
inner control is formed, individuals need fewer outer controls (Thompson & Dodder,
1983).
20
According to Reckless (1973b), in addition to a good self-concept, inner
containment is also dependent upon goal orientation. Unlike strain theories,
containment theory suggests that established legitimate goals provide a sense of
direction which would, in turn, lead to conformity. Containment theory assumes that
these goals are obtainable for all individuals and will decrease the ambitions of
individuals (Lilly et al., 2007).
Frustration tolerance is another factor of inner containment. Reckless (1973b)
realizes that individuals try to control their biophysical motives. This control also may
create frustration as a result of different opportunities that are available to them (Lilly et
al., 2007). Individuals form varying levels of frustration tolerance. According to Reckless
(1973b), increasing individualism is a reason for lower levels of frustration tolerance.
Norm retention is another factor of inner containment. Norm retention refers to
“adherence to, commitment to, acceptance of, identification with, legitimating of defense
of values, norms, laws, codes, institutions and customs” (Reckless, 1967, p. 476). For
Lilly et al. (2007, p. 91) it is not the norm retention, but “norm erosion,” which is the main
problem leading to delinquency.
Containment theory does not cover all delinquent behaviors, such as crimes that
emerge as a consequence of strong inner pushes, such as personality disorders,
anxieties, and compulsions. Reckless’ containment theory excluded the offenders on
the periphery, including those who committed crimes because of some organic brain
dysfunction, psychological disorders, or whose deviant behavior was part of the social
norm for their group.
21
Social Control Theory Tradition after Reckless
Although Hirschi was not the first to propose a social control theory, his book
“Causes of Delinquency” (1969) became the most cited book in criminology (Jensen,
2003a, p. 12). Compared to Reckless’ containment theory in which a list of internal and
external containments were presented, Hirschi’s version of social control theory was
quite parsimonious. In its most basic explanation what Hirschi argued was that social
bonds contain four elements that could constitute significant barriers to youths’
involvement in delinquency. Those four elements are attachment to significant others,
commitment to traditional types of action, involvement in traditional activities, and beliefs
in the moral values of society. “Hirschi (1969) asserted that when youths are strongly
attached to parents, peers, and school, committed to customary lines of action,
engaged in conventional activities, and believe in the validity of the moral values of
society (normative beliefs), delinquency is less likely to occur” (Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006,
p. 713).
Hirschi and Gottfredson published “A General Theory of Crime” in 1990, setting
forth a related but different control theory, self-control theory. “They argued that the
crimes people could commit varied by age, but that the individual “tendency” to do so is
a product of self-control established through the interaction with parents and others
during childhood” (Jensen, 2003a, p. 12). Hirschi and Gottfredson (1994) defined selfcontrol as the “tendency to avoid acts whose long-term costs exceed their momentary
advantages” (p. 3). According to them, people who are low in self-control are “free to
enjoy the quick and easy and ordinary pleasures of crime without undue concern for the
pains that follow from them” (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2001, p. 90).
22
According to Jensen (2003a), “at present, self-control theory has not been shown
to have superior explanatory power over Hirschi’s earlier social bond theory” (p. 15).
This perspective is not a newer version of Hirschi’s social control theory and it has its
own critics. Furthermore, he summarized these criticisms in two groups. First of all,
while Hirschi challenged the psychological theories in Causes of Delinquency, in his
1990 work with Gottfredson, “the central focus is on just such states” (Jensen, 2003a, p.
14). The second criticism also relates to the diversion that he had with his first theory.
Again, in his social bond theory Hirschi clearly distinguished between four different
forms of bonds, however in his new work he lumped the internal barriers under the
rubric of self-control.
In an earlier study Pratt and Cullen (2000) also identified some problems related
with the empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory. They reported
that a lack of self-control: (1) was always significantly and positively related to and
analogous with criminal activity; (2) did not consider the measurement tactic used to
assess the theory; and (3) was not always the sole or strongest predictor of criminal and
analogous activity.
Moreover, in two separate recent studies both Piquero and Bouffard (2007) and
Wikström and Treiber (2007) offered a new point of theoretical extension to Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s (1990) concept of self-control. They both offered that self-control should
be considered in a situational manner (a factor in the process of choice) rather than as
an individual trait.
Towards the end of 20th century new perspectives emerged in the study of
deviance and two of them included the concept of control. The first one is the “power-
23
control” theory introduced by Hagan, Gillis and Simpson in 1987. Basically, “powercontrol theory integrated ideas from feminist theories with ideas from social control
theory to explain variations in “common delinquency” by gender and parental
occupation” (Jensen, 2003a, p. 15). The second one is the “control-balance” theory
introduced by Charles Tittle (1995). The central premise of his theory was “the amount
of control to which people are subject relative to the amount of control they can exercise
affects the probability that they will commit specific types of deviance” (p. 142).
In the coming years, as suggested by Jensen (2003) the social control theory
tradition may have some issues such as; integration with social learning theories,
clarification of basic concepts and further tests related to the most current perspectives
of this tradition.
Weaknesses of Social Control Theories
Even though control theories have received significant empirical support, this
tradition also has its critics. Anderson and Dyson (2002) summarized four key criticisms
in four key issues. According to them, social control theories:
¾ fail to properly explain why children in the middle and upper classes engage
in crime,
¾ make the case that those in the lower class are improperly socialized,
¾ do not explain why some people engage in delinquency while young, but
becoming law-abiding adults,
¾ are also criticized for not explaining why bonds weaken or fail to develop from
the beginning (Anderson & Dyson, 2002, p. 197).
24
Social control theorists have also been criticized because of their emphasis on
self-concept as a deterrent to deviant behavior (Shoemaker, 2005). Agnew (1985) also
found there was less empirical support for social control theory when a longitudinal
analysis of delinquent behavior was conducted.
Conclusion
In the current study, in accordance with Roberts (2002), the Family Rituals
Questionnaire (FRQ) will be used as a measure of outer containment while the selfesteem index will be used as a measure of inner containment. In addition to these two
concepts, the measure of religiosity (Emmett, 2000) will also be included as another
form of inner containment. In the next section a detailed discussion of each of these
concepts and other relevant risk factors will be provided.
Major Concepts
The major concepts and risk factors affecting the deviant behavior will be
discussed in this section. Since deviant behavior is the focus of this study, the section
will begin with the discussion of the deviant behavior. Following this part, detailed
discussions of other major concepts of the study, including family rituals, self-esteem,
and religiosity, will be presented. Finally, other relevant risk factors affecting the
likelihood of engaging in deviant behavior will be discussed.
Deviant Behavior
In general “deviance" can be defined as the concept that encompasses a variety
of forms of human behavior that have been defined in a society as wrong, bad, immoral
or illegal (Jensen, 2003). According to Orcutt (2004, online document), “most of the
25
disagreement over the concept of deviance appears to boil down to a choice between
two alternative definitions: a normative definition versus a relativistic definition of
deviance”. Similarly, Liska and Mesner (1999), Siegel (2001) and Lindsey and Beach
(2004) employed the terms deviance as norm violation and deviance as social
definition.
Normative Definition and Related Perspectives
From a normative perspective it is possible to define deviance or deviant
behavior broadly as the violation of norms (Badham, Garrety, Morrigan, Zanko, &
Dawson, 2003; Chris, Paul, & Scott, 1996; Fritsche, 2002; Joinson & Dietz-Uhler, 2002;
Katz, 1972; Markova, 2006) in a particular context.
Most observers would agree with this broad view because “norms” are central to
the existence of societies. But even with a definition of deviance as norm-violating
behavior, one should clearly explain the norms that are violated. It is relatively an easy
task when it comes to define those norms for serious crimes, such as, suicide, or
murder. However, the definition problem is in the norms that are not strongly agreed
upon as the serious crimes (e.g., laws versus customs).
One of these perspectives is the essentialist approach. According to Goode
(1996) the essentialist definition of deviance, or deviance as objectively given, sees
actions as wrong not because they violate a given society’s or group’s norms, rules, or
laws, but because they are objectively wrong or absolutely evil. “They violate a law of
nature, or science, or rules of God” (Goode, 1996, p.7). Goode, furthermore states that
according to this perspective the quality of deviance resides in the act, not in how it is
judged by the people and there is no variation across time or place in terms of evil or
26
deviance. Even though it is easy to disprove, the essentialist approach asserts that,
what is evil and deviant at one time and in one place is evil and deviant at all times and
in every place.
On the other hand, it is also necessary to focus on the normative consensus
concerning the definition of deviance. Although there is relativity among cultures and
over time, it also possible to find widely accepted norms for some forms of behavior
than others. For example, International Police Organization (INTERPOL) is the world’s
largest police organization with 186 member countries. Interpol and its member
countries recognizes such offenses as human trafficking, terrorism and sex offenses
against children as crimes and they work together to prevent and combat against these
crimes. This shows that even though there is relativity over the definitions, there is also
consensus to some degree. The main focus of this perspective is their emphasis on
inalienable or universal human rights.
Relativistic Definition and Related Perspectives
How one defines deviance is “in the eyes of the beholder.” Simmons (1969)
reported the results of a study where he asked “Who is deviant?” Based on various
answers that he got to this question he concluded that; “So deviance, like beauty, is in
the eyes of the beholder” (Simmons, 1969, p. 4). One of the intriguing things about
research in the sociology of deviance is how the definition of deviance changes. Who
has the power to define deviance and who or what helps the definition change over time
(Chambliss, Doyle, & Reeves, 2004), and which definition is more reliable and valid
over the other definitions? These questions demonstrate the complexity and difficulty of
studying deviance from an objectivist perspective.
27
The most important aspect of this process is the effect of the broader culture of a
society. Obviously, part of the answer lies in powerful institutions. The mass media,
legislators, courts, and law enforcement agencies are critically involved in the definition
of what constitutes deviance (Chambliss et al., 2004). But, these institutions are also
working with the toolkit provided by the broader culture.
Beyond these, however, social movements are also critical factors. For example,
gay rights movement had an effect on the definition of homosexuality. The Local Law
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA; also known as the
Matthew Shepard Act), HR 1592, passed the House of Representatives on May 3,
2007. This was accepted as a victory of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Movement,
because this bill expanded the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include
crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or disability. Similar examples can also be given about the civil rights
movement and feminist movement as well.
If one tries to observe and understand the most basic themes in the sociology of
deviance, it is possible to see some general ideas within this specific field. First of all,
even though the objectivist approach would disagree, it is generally agreed that the
specific forms or instances of conduct that fall under the definition of deviance or
deviant behavior vary over time and among societies. This is the most important part of
the definition of deviance from this perspective. Whichever theoretical perspective one
may use, at the end, even the definition within the same tradition will eventually vary.
This highlights the cultural and temporal relativity of the definition of deviance. One of
the major problems and difficulties of cross-cultural study of deviance is that even the
28
objective components of an ordinary crime, such as robbery, have different definitions in
different countries and legal systems.
Another aspect of this process is, of course, the key players in a society. This is
obviously a conflict perspective: we should acknowledge that in the process of defining
what is deviant or not, some groups will have more influence than others. For example
governments have the ultimate power to decide on the definition of crime, which is a
special form of deviance. Also there are other social institutions or moral enterprises,
like religion, which have an obvious power over the definition of morality.
According to Shelden and Brown (2003), this tendency - creating crime
perception - may be because of the efforts of trying to control a society in chaos and
establish a moral panic-oriented life to increase profits, establish social control, practice
certain motivations, and achieve political goals via criminal justice policies and the
highly motivated perception of crimes. Crime control as an industry may be profitable for
certain people, institutions, or groups who hold the power and interest in society.
An approach that is relevant to this definition of deviance is constructionism. This
perspective examines how reality is socially constructed, through the examination of
face-to-face relations and the use of symbols in communication and the ways of
attaching meanings to those symbols. According to this perspective involvement in
forms of deviance is not randomly distributed (Robins & Wish, 1977). The individual’s
social location, which is shaped and determined by different variables such as
socialization, social learning, social control mechanisms, and other social influences
and constraints, has a profound impact on the definition of deviance (Jensen, 2003).
29
This perspective on deviance was very popular in the late 20th century. It
“focuses on the construction and application of deviant labels and their consequences
for those so labeled” (Jensen, 2003, p. 6). Rubington and Weinberg (2005, pp. 1-2) note
that social constructionists take deviance as “subjectively problematic” as opposed to
“objectively given.” Goode and Ben-Yehuda (1994) propose that “to the constructionist,
definitions have no absolute, objective validity” (p. 32) and that “reality depends on
perspective, and perspective is to a degree arbitrary” (p. 33).
Each of these perspectives provides different and to a certain degree “conflicting”
definitions and explanations on deviance. They shed light on various aspects of the
same phenomenon and it is in the interest of a researcher to be aware of the similarities
and differences between these perspectives to adequately address the issues at hand.
Rituals
Rituals, by definition are social acts of symbolic significance that are performed
on certain occasions prescribed by tradition (Wiggins, Wiggins, & Zanden, 1994).
Rituals involve patterned, repetitive social interactions that include agreed-upon roles
for the participants (Fiese, 1992), as well as an assignment of symbolic meaning to the
interactions at individual and societal levels (Emmett, 2000). Adding up almost all of
these characteristics Alexander (2004) provides an extensive definition of rituals.
Rituals are episodes of repeated and simplified cultural communication in
which the direct partners to a social interaction and those observing it,
share a mutual belief in the descriptive and prescriptive validity of the
communication’s symbolic contents and accept the authenticity of one
another’s intentions (Alexander, 2004, p. 527).
30
Rituals are little things that we as people do constantly to show the significance
and importance in our lives (Insoll, 2004). Kanagy and Kraybill (1999) referred to these
constant [the authors used the word “stable”] patterns of behavior as rituals. Rituals also
assume many forms: as simple as shaking someone’s hand or as complicated as a
religious ceremony. Rituals can vary from culture to culture and they are the
components in society that make cultures what they are today (Feuchtwang, 2007).
Each culture may perform the same ritual in a different way.
Rituals affect individuals, groups and society as a whole and humans have a
great attraction to rituals (Roberts, 2004). The rituals feel “natural” or “normal” to the
person partaking in them (Peregrine, 2001). In addition to calling the rituals “natural” or
“normal”, Goffman (1967) suggested that rituals are also essential for: “(a) mobilizing
individuals to participate in interaction, (b) making individuals cognizant of the relevant
rules of irrelevance, transformation, resource use, and talk, (c) guiding individuals
during the course of the interaction, and (d) helping individuals correct for breaches and
incidents” (Roberts, 2002, pp. 55-56).
Family Systems
It is the nature of a family that its members are intensely connected emotionally
(Bowen, 2003). Family systems theory, according to Broderick (1993) views the family
as a functioning whole, with integrated parts that work to maintain a state of equilibrium.
“The theory considers communication and interaction patterns, separateness and
connectedness, loyalty and independence, and adaptation to stress in the context of the
whole as opposed to the individual in isolation” (Christian, 2006, p. 2). So, in order to
31
understand fully the dynamics of a family, a holistic orientation rather than linear
orientation is necessary.
Roberts (2002) lists five core assumptions of the family systems theory based on
an extensive research. Citing Bradshaw (1998), Cheal (1991), and Ritzer (1992),
Roberts (2002) identifies these core assumptions as follows:
1. A system must be understood as a whole instead of by its component parts:
Family systems theory views the family as a whole, with the primary focus on
the interaction among family members (Whitchurch and Constantine, 1993).
So, the functioning of the family members is interdependent.
2. Systems are multilevel and can be applied to all levels of the social world:
According to Fiese et al, (2002) the study of family systems lies at the
intersection between individual- level and family-level factors, thus helping us
to understand the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the family
system. Additionally, every family system contains a number of small groups
within itself, which are usually made up of 2-3 people.
3. Systems are self-reflexive: Human systems are characterized by their ability
to make themselves and their own behavior the focus of examination; this is
self-reflexivity (Whitchurch and Constantine, 1993). According to family
systems theory, the goal of a family system is to maintain equilibrium (Cheal,
1991). The tendency of systems to keep doing things as they have already
been done is known as the system’s equilibrium. This equilibrium could be
maintained through feedback loops, boundaries, family rules, and family
32
rituals and traditions (Bradshaw, 1988). The interactions that take place within
the family system are reciprocal.
4. Systems are inherently integrative: The family is one element of human life.
Just like any other social institutions, it is an integral part of the society.
Slesnick and Prestopnick (2005) and Henggeler and Borduin (1995) suggest
the individuals are nested in a social ecology within a complex of
interconnected systems. These systems include individual, family, and extrafamilial (peer, school, and neighborhood) factors which are related with each
other.
5. All open, ongoing systems consist of patterned, interactive processes with
emergent properties: Family systems have boundaries and can be viewed on
a continuum from open to closed systems (Morgaine, 2001). Boundaries are
related to the limits of any system and they are used to identify what or who is
“in” or “out of” the family (Walsh and Giblin, 1988). Slesnick and Prestopnick
(2005) argued that the family systems theory sees the family as an open
system. Researchers have found that families who are receptive to outside
information while continuing to maintain their boundaries will continue to
evolve and adjust to changes in the environment (Cheal, 1991).
Researchers have suggested that family rituals provide one mechanism through
which family boundaries are established and maintained (Broderick, 1993; Pipher,
1996). Family rituals have the potential to bind family members to each other and to
connect the family to the outside social environment (Wolin and Bennett, 1984).
Moreover, according to Fingerman and Bermann (2000), when there is change in the
33
family, rituals often keep a family together during times of change and stress. Cheal
(1991), on the other hand, suggests that family rituals provide a communication
mechanism through which families express their feelings about one another.
Family Rituals
Families are not free from rituals and there are many reasons for performing
rituals. As cited in Emmett (2000) and Roberts (2002), Bossard and Boll (1950), as
being among the first family researchers, defined a family ritual as something that
includes a recurrent event, taking place with the members of the family as participants,
with prescribed behaviors, and with a sense of historical continuity and meaning through
repetition. In more recent studies family rituals are defined as repetitive behaviors
involving two or more family members (Fiese et al., 2002).
According to Fiese et al. (2002), the study of family routines and rituals is
important for three basic reasons. First, such study represents a focus on the whole
family process as a group, involving multiple family members, not only the individuals.
Second, family life provides the cultural environment for the family routines and rituals
that can help us to understand cross cultural differences. Third, these rituals and
routines are at the intersection between individual-level and family-level factors, which
help us to understand the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the family
system.
Dimensions of Family Rituals
Researchers also recognize specific dimensions of family ritual life. For example,
Kiser (2007) listed six dimensions of family rituals based on the studies conducted by
Fiese and Wamboldt (2000) and Schuck and Bucy (1997). These dimensions are: (1)
34
ritualization, (2) routine practices or structure, (3) ritual importance or meaning, (4)
deliberateness or persistence, (5) adaptability or flexibility, and (6) preparatory events.
Kiser (2007) defines these dimensions as follows:
Table 1
Dimensions of Family Rituals
Dimension
Definition
Refers to the extent that the family enjoys a dynamic ritual life.
Ritual observance encompasses various features of family ritual
behavior: breadth across ritual activities (based upon having at
least a modicum of rituals), elaboration of rituals, and continuity
over time in the observation of the selected rituals. Often
Ritualization
characterized on a continuum from under-ritualized to overritualized. Under ritualized family have few family rituals, often
minimizing important milestones and family events while overritualized families have strict, rigid rules for carrying out rituals
along with inflexible expectations regarding participation.
Routine practices Characterized by regularity of activity, who is responsible for
or
Structure
planning and follow through, who does what, where the ritual
occurs, when it occurs and how often.
(table continues)
35
Table 1(continued).
Dimension
Definition
Refers to the extent that the family's ritual and routine life
supports a collective value and belief system. Meaning making
Ritual importance refers to the role of rituals and routine in the creation of
or
understanding regarding what is important to the family and what
Meaning
explanations the family uses to justify both positive and negative
events that affect them. It encompasses the symbolic meaning of
ritual behaviors to the family.
Commitment of the family to maintaining rituals despite obstacles.
On this dimension, family rituals range from disrupted to
Deliberateness
distinctive. Disrupted rituals occur when family ritual practices
or
have been interrupted, avoided, missed, or lost due to family
Persistence
problems or stressful events while distinctive rituals occur when
family rituals are kept separate from family problems and carried
out regardless of stressors.
Adaptability
Ability of the family to adapt rituals to meet the needs of the
or
individual or the entire family over time.
flexibility
Preparatory
events
Characterized by very elaborate and complex planning and
groundwork to non-existent.
36
However, two of the dimensions of family rituals, routine and meaning, have
received considerable support across a number of studies (Fiese & Tomcho, 2001). In
her study Roberts (2002) reported that it was the meaning and not the routine of family
rituals that indicate whether they serve a positive or negative function for adolescents.
For example, meaningful family rituals have been associated with positive outcomes,
including greater marital satisfaction (Fiese & Kline, 1993), higher adolescent selfesteem (Fiese, 1992), and better adjustment for boys in single-parent families (Brody &
Flor, 1997).
Functions of Family Rituals
Roberts (2002) suggests that family rituals have the potential to serve very
important functions for the family. Carrying out regular, meaningful family rituals
requires and demonstrates an investment in family relationships (Leon & Jacobvitz,
2003). Rituals are also a key element in establishing solidarity and the collective
consciousness within large and small social groups. According to Marshall (2002),
social integration and a sense of unity are among the most noted outcomes and
functions of rituals. Familial rituals help us understand the degree of cohesiveness
within this social unit. “Family rituals often involve the coming together of family
members who live apart, and this may provide the opportunity for messages reflecting
the availability of support by others in the family” (Howe, 2002, p. 128). On the other
hand, it has been emphasized that family rituals must have a certain degree of breadth
and encompass a variety of settings in order to be effective (Fiese, 1993).
These rituals are so essential that families with ritual disruption are more likely to
have offspring with problematic behaviors later in life (Amodeo & Griffin, 1997). For
37
instance, Denham (2002) reported that in infants and preschoolers, children are
healthier and their behavior is better when there are established rituals. Each family is
capable of creating new rituals based on past experiences. According to Compan,
Moreno, Ruiz, and Pascual (2002), generational rituals can give a sense of belonging
and respect across generations. This sense of belonging takes place by learning these
rituals from our parents and then passing them on to our children (Rappaport, 1999).
Familial dysfunction was also found to be more related to adult self-esteem (Werner and
Broida, 1991).
One of the functions of family rituals is to provide support and containment for
strong emotions (Roberts, 1988). For example, family rituals appear to serve a
protective function as well, especially for the psychosocial development of children of
alcoholic parents (Roberts, 2002). Their importance for the health and adjustment of
family members has been emphasized theoretically and empirically (Haugland, 2005).
The constructive use of rituals provides one way that families maintain their health and
the health of their individual members (Kiser, Bennett, Heston, & Paavola, 2005).
Beside these functions Roberts (2002) also noted that rituals serve to mark
transitions from one stage of life to another, establish, clarify and maintain family roles,
boundaries, and rules, and finally to portray how family members relate to each other
through the shaping, expressing and maintaining of important relationships, as other
significant functions of the family rituals.
Research on Family Rituals
Research on family rituals using the FRQ, just like Emmett’s (2000) study, has
basically been in the areas of clinical and non-clinical psychology. Emmett (2000)
38
reported that the research on family rituals included research on topics such as the
therapeutic uses of ritual, interventions for early childhood, and importance of family
ritual on pain. Kiser (2007) also states that family rituals have been used in the research
on psychosocial adjustment in children, families dealing with chronic physical illness,
pain, and disability, psychiatric disturbance, and changes in membership. Furthermore
Roberts (2002) included other areas as examples of research that have been done on
family rituals, such as: family rituals and healthy family practices, higher adolescent
satisfaction with family life, marital satisfaction, health-related anxiety symptoms in
adolescents, and intergenerational recurrence of alcoholism.
Unfortunately, research on family rituals has not focused on the relationship
between family rituals and its possible effect on deviant behavior. In fact, a review of
literature identified only one study that was done to examine this association, and that
study was conducted by Roberts (2002). Instead of exploring the association between
family rituals and deviant behavior, sociological research has generally focused on the
meanings and development of family rituals within the family system and their effect on
the relations between family members. There may be two explanations why this has
been neglected. It could be that deviance researchers are by and large unaware of this
part of family systems research and thus missed this possible link. On the other hand,
family researchers could also be unaware of the research on deviance.
Fiese et al. (2002) reviewed 50 years of research on family routine and family
ritual, stated that it may be a time to celebrate the accomplishments for the scientific
evidence to suggest that family routines and rituals play a central role in family life and
they can be considered a reasonable vehicle for promoting healthy families during the
39
21st century. Howe (2002) agrees that it is a significant accomplishment, but he also
states that the challenge for the future will be an examination of routines and rituals in
relation to emerging research paradigms in family psychology such as attachment
theory, developmental transitions, and the transactional nature of family and individual
health (Fiese et al., 2002).
Parallel to these arguments I also suggest that the examination of routines and
rituals should also be extended to the study of deviant behavior. As noted before
deviance researchers thus far have neglected this aspect of family life. The focus was
on the risk factors at the family level such as income, number of children, living
arrangements, and structure of the family. However, further study of routines and rituals
can reveal the dynamics of the families that not only affects the conduct of the children
but also the conduct of adult members of the families. Instead of just focusing on the
characteristics of the family, also focusing on the dynamic processes such as rituals
taking place within the family might contribute to the development of deviance theory.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the definition of rituals may vary, the relative meaning
remains the same. And even though rituals may be religious or secular, it is evident that
they affect everyone in some way or another. Whether we participate or practice rituals
individually, in a group such as our family or local community, we all play some role.
Rituals will continue to reshape and establish individuals and society as a whole.
This study proposes that individuals who report positive experiences with family
rituals are less likely to commit deviant behaviors. The regulation of behavior within the
family contributes to social control within and outside the family (Reiss, 1981). Berger
40
(1963) contends that the family may play a more important role as an agent of social
control in society than any other institution.
One theory of deviance that incorporates the family as an important agent for
contributing to conforming behavior is Reckless' (1973b) containment theory. Families
contribute to the development of these factors in both direct and indirect ways. Families
contribute directly to social control through the opportunities they provide for conforming
activities both within and outside the family. Families contribute indirectly through their
impact on the psychological factors that shape children's self-concept and self-esteem.
Hence, the FRQ will be used to measure the concept of family rituals and explain the
effect of outer containment on deviant behavior among young adults.
Self-Esteem
In its most general terms, self-esteem is the concept that reflects the emotional
or evaluative component of one’s self-knowledge (Hook, 2007). Wiggins et al. (1994)
described self-esteem as the process by which we evaluate our specific characteristics
and our self identities as good, bad, acceptable or unacceptable. On the other hand,
Sheslow (2005) described self-esteem as wanting respect from others and needing self
respect. The focus of the following review of the literature regarding self-esteem will be
on the application of this construct to understanding offending behavior rather than
providing an exhaustive review of the field.
According to these definitions, the way people treat others helps to form how we
personally feel about ourselves. For example, if someone is constantly told how great
they are as a person, it is more likely that they will have a positive image of themselves.
41
However, someone that constantly receives negative treatment will most likely have
negative self-esteem (Sheslow, 2005).
The development of self-esteem can also be explained as a reflexive behavior.
Cooley (1902) labeled this process as the ‘looking-glass-self.’ According to Cooley
(1902) children’s conceptions of themselves are influenced by seeing themselves
reflected in other people’s attitudes and behaviors toward them. “A lot of our self-image
is based on interactions we have with other people and our life experiences. This
mental picture (our self-image) contributes to our self-esteem” (Johnson and Ferguson,
1991, p. 15).
The self-esteem of a person develops in early childhood and usually stays with a
person through his/her adult life. Self-esteem may benefit or diminish the individual,
especially a child, therefore affecting society as a whole. According to Blyth and Traeger
(1983) the major part of developing self-esteem occurs during childhood. Being praised
and listened to, spoken to with respect, being successful in sports or school and having
trustworthy friends are childhood experiences that lead to positive self-esteem.
Furthermore Oesterreich (1995) states that starting in infancy, we judge the ability to be
loved by our parents by the way they hold, nurture, change, and feed us. Through
middle school, high school, and parts of adulthood, self-esteem is created by the way
that others judge us.
Collins (2002) focused especially on the importance of adolescence and stated
that through these years, self-esteem and personal dignity increases in importance
compared to all other stages of development. Low self-esteem can easily form during
adolescence. This is a critical time in life when identities are being formed and young
42
people are significantly influenced by others. Similarly, Brandon, Herzog, Irvin, &
Gwaltney (2004) also assert that as adulthood comes about, the feedback from others
becomes less important. There is a change from external sources of feedback to more
of an internal way of judging our own character. With adulthood, we create our own
measurement through our values, accomplishments, morals, and success.
One of the important aspects of self-esteem is its degree. In literature the degree
of self-esteem is generally explained by two opposite concepts, such as negative –
positive or low – high self-esteem. In this study the terms low self-esteem and high selfesteem will be used to describe the degree of self-esteem. It is generally accepted that
there are significant benefits to high self-esteem. On the other hand, low self-esteem is
thought to be a pathway to personal misery, failure and even violent behavior.
According to Hook (2007), popular culture presents high self-esteem as a panacea that
ensures personal happiness, stable relationships, and even financial success.
Another important aspect of self-esteem is its stability. For example, Battle
(1992) suggests that once self-esteem is established, it is generally stable over time
and resistant to change. On the other hand, there is also some research focusing on the
health and the stability of self-esteem. For example, Baumeister, Heatherton and Tice
(1993) examined the stability of self-esteem as a separate variable in their research.
Moreover, Kernis et al., (1993) and Kernis et al., (1989) suggest that instability of selfesteem impacts high and low self-esteem individuals differently. In a more recent study
Ragg (1999) also reported that an unstable self-concept was the strongest predictor of
battering.
43
The issue of stability of self-esteem is often seen in studies that focus on high
self-esteem. In a more recent study, Kernis (2005) differentiated between two types of
high self-esteem: secure high self-esteem and fragile high self-esteem. According to
Kernis (2005) secure self-esteem reflects positive feelings of self-worth that are well
anchored and secure, and that are positively associated with a wide range of indices of
psychological health and well-being indices. In contrast, fragile high self-esteem reflects
“positive feelings of self-worth that are vulnerable to threat, as they require continual
bolstering, protection, and validation through various self-protective or selfenhancement strategies” (Kernis, 2005, p. 1590). People with fragile high self-esteem
are very proud of who they are, they feel superior to most other people, and they are
willing and able to defend themselves against possible threats to their positive self-view.
Research has show that people with low and high self-esteem react differently to
various situations including conflict, negative feedback, and personal relationships. On
the other hand, “evidence for the role of self-esteem in delinquency is quite
contradictory” (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003, p. 23). In the following
section a summary of some of the more important findings on the relationship between
self-esteem and deviant behavior will be presented.
Self-Esteem and Deviant Behavior
As stated above, result of studies that conducted on the relationship between
self-esteem and delinquency is quite contradictory. Jang and Thornberry (1998) stated
that there have been mixed findings on the role of self-esteem in deviant behavior.
Furthermore, according to Shoemaker (2005) conflict theorists have argued that this is
because the influence of social inequalities that exist in the social environment are often
44
ignored when examining the relationship between self-esteem and deviant behavior. A
possible explanation of this issue could be that the researchers who use individualistic
concepts of this nature tend to be psychologists or those who are psychologically
oriented, and as such are not trained in or tuned into looking at the importance of
sociological variables such as this. In addition, sociologists who are interested in
understanding rates and patterns of deviance rightly question the utility of psychological
concepts to explain patterned behavior. For example, Emler (2001) stated that there are
two basic arguments that predict a straightforward association between low self-esteem
and delinquent behavior:
According to the first of these arguments people who are convinced they are
worthless have no self-esteem to lose from any opprobrium they might attract by
breaking the law. The second argument states that young people with a low
sense of their own worth are more susceptible to influence of this kind. The flip
side of this assumption is that; people with high self-esteem avoid crime because
they anticipate that it would damage their sense of their own worth. (p. 18)
Some studies found a modest relationship between these variables. Jensen (1973)
found some relation between low self-esteem and delinquency. Two more recent
studies also reported a weak to moderate effect size of self-esteem on delinquency.
While a cross-sectional study conducted by Neumark-Sztainer, Storey, French, and
Resnick (1997) indicated a moderate effect size; McCarthy and Hoge (1984) reported a
very weak effect size of self-esteem on delinquency. Kaplan (1980) found among the
middle-class children and among girls that the “children who were not already involved
in deviant activities and whose initial self-esteem was low were more likely to become
45
involved in deviance subsequently” (p. 47). However, it is not surprising that
psychological variables would show essentially weak effects in terms of being able to
explain aggregate phenomena.
One of the best examples of an association between self-esteem and
delinquency is found in the research conducted by Trzesniewski, Donnellan, Robins,
Moffitt, and Caspi in 2002. They found significant correlations between self-reported
delinquency and three different measures of self-esteem. Baumeister et al. (2003)
praised this research as being the “best available evidence for a positive link between
low self-esteem and subsequent delinquent behavior” (p. 23), because of the study’s
large sample size, longitudinal design, and multiple methods measurement of behavior.
The contradiction between the results of the relationship between self-esteem
and deviant behavior remains the same when it comes to the relationship between
degree of self-esteem and deviant behavior. For example, Baumeister, Tice, and Hutton
(1989) stated that violence results from a high level of self-esteem. However, low selfesteem can also cause many problems. Those with low self-esteem were often given
messages that failed experiences meant they were failures of their whole self. Low selfesteem can lead to several issues. According to Biro, Striegal-Moore, Franko, Padgett,
and Bean (2006) low self-esteem is associated with adverse outcomes, such as
depression, substance abuse, and antisocial behavior. In fact, individuals with low selfesteem are more easily influenced compared to those with high self-esteem (Tang &
Reynolds, 1990). Those with lower self-esteem will be less confident and secure in their
actions or ideas so they will seek cues from their environment to assist them. They will
also more likely seek approval of others around them and be more willing to go along
46
with the others and what they think and do. However, there are also other studies that
reported no relationship between self-esteem and delinquency. For example, Zieman
and Benson (1983) and Jang and Thornberry (1998) failed to find any relation between
self-esteem and delinquency in their studies.
Three different studies reported different results by analyzing the American Youth
in Transition data set. The contradiction is more obvious in these studies that used the
same data set. In the first study, Rosenberg and Rosenberg (1978) claimed to find an
effect of self-esteem on delinquency. However, Bynner, O’Malley, and Bachman (1981)
and Wells and Rankin (1983) reanalyzed the same data set by using other statistical
techniques and found little evidence that self-esteem influenced delinquency.
However, the effect of self-esteem appeared to vary by type of deviant behavior.
For example, Vega, Zimmerman, Warheit, and Apospori (1993) identified low selfesteem as one of ten risk factors for “illicit drug” use among adolescents in the United
States. Moreover, for alcohol abuse the findings are very consistent. Alcoholics have
been found to have lower self-esteem. For example, Maney (1990) found that higher
alcohol consumption was correlated with lower self-esteem.
Another example of deviant behavior which has been shown to be related to selfesteem is teenage pregnancy. For example in their studies Werner and Smith (1977),
Plotnick (1992), and Keddie’s (1992) all reported that teenage pregnancy was
associated with lower self-esteem. Even though the evidence is strong in this case there
are also other studies that found no association. For example, Vernon, Green, and
Frothingham (1983) found no association between level of self-esteem and subsequent
likelihood of teenage pregnancy.
47
Overall, there is some support for the traditional view that low self-esteem may
contribute to deviant behavior (Baumeister et al., 2003). Even though the association
between self-esteem and deviant behavior varies among the studies discussed here, “it
is almost always negative, suggesting that the effect is present, although probably quite
weak” (Baumeister et al., 2003, p. 24). However, we also need to note that the apparent
relationships could be correlational, not necessarily causal.
Self-Esteem and Other Risk Factors
In the literature there is also some suggestion that the effect of self-esteem on
deviant behavior may be mediated by other risk factors (Felson & Zielinski, 1989; Klein,
Elifson, & Sterk, 2007; Krider, 2002; Messina & Messina, 2007; Patchen, 1999; Roberts,
2004; and Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarty, 2007). Because of such arguments, a
brief discussion on how self-esteem affects some of the risk factors that are part of this
research will be presented in this section.
Religion provides a greater sense of self identity and self-esteem for some
people. According to Roberts (2004), religion provides a meaning function and a
belonging and identity function. The meaning function refers to the provision of meaning
in life. Even in suffering, there can be meaning in life. The belonging and identity
function provides group members with a greater sense of solidarity and a great sense of
self-esteem. In fact, people derive much of their self-esteem from group membership.
Members of an ethnic group share in a sense of high self-esteem or low self-esteem,
depending on the status of their group (Wiggins, et al., 1994).
Members of marginalized groups can feel a greater sense of power, prestige and
control by identifying with powerful groups. Other group members compare their group
48
to other groups in an effort to make their own group appear superior. The more selfesteem an individual can gain from identifying with a group, the more likely individuals
are to identify with that group (Patchen, 1999).
Self-esteem has a lot to do with an individual's support system. If one has a
positive support system then it is more than likely that person will have high selfesteem, but if one has a negative support system then it is more than likely that person
will have low self-esteem (Felson & Zielinski, 1989). “Healthy self-esteem originates in
the environment found in the: family, school, peer group, work place, and community”
(Messina & Messina, 2007, Online article).
One significant life event that has a profound effect on children’s self-esteem is
parental divorce. Studies have shown that children whose parents are divorced still
display the effects of the divorce 2-3 years after it occurs, and “these children were two
to four times more likely to be seriously disturbed emotionally and behaviorally than
children from intact families” (Krider, 2002, Online article). Because self-esteem is built
throughout childhood, events such as divorce can disturb a child’s self-esteem due to
the child blaming him/herself for the divorce and harboring these emotions through
adolescence and then adulthood. Divorce can also affect children’s future relationships,
causing them to be cautious whom they get emotionally close to due to the fear of
“messing up” a relationship.
For a child who is abandoned or neglected, self-esteem is almost always
negative. “By being treated in a manner that conveys no sense of mattering to others
and no sense of worth, many neglected persons fail to develop any true sense of selfesteem (i.e., neither poor nor good self-esteem is developed, since the person becomes
49
disinclined to think in terms of him/herself) and, therefore, invest no value in themselves
or their futures” (Klein et al., 2007, p. 49).
Swann et al., (2007, p, 91) states that there is a “cyclical interplay” between selfesteem, behavior, and the social environment. In fact, research shows that high selfesteem can produce positive outcomes, not just on an individual level but also on
society as a whole. Just as self-esteem influences society, society also affects selfesteem. Ultimately, self-esteem was found to be the second leading factor in eating
disorders (Shea and Pritchard, 2006).
Conclusion
“Many researchers have sought to link self-esteem to violence, aggression, and
antisocial tendencies” (Baumeister et al., 2003, p. 24). Based on the results of these
studies it would be fair to conclude that “low self-esteem has no coherent effect on
delinquency” (Emler, 2001, p. 83). The results are mixed, at best. At all events,
evidence from the other longitudinal studies (Bynner et al., 1981; McCarthy & Hoge,
1984) is mixed. “A recurring theme in their reports is that low self-esteem is but one
among several risk factors, and often one of the less important” (Emler, 2001, p. 85).
However, “the lack of independent prediction does not necessarily undermine the
value of self-esteem: Self-esteem may have important effects on delinquency that
happen to be mediated by other variables” (Baumeister et al., 2003, p. 23). Better
causal models are needed to see if effect is indirect. For example, “perhaps low selfesteem people are more likely to engage in delinquency because they are more likely to
disengage from school and take risks” (Baumeister et al., 2003, p. 23).
50
Because of the factors that have been discussed in this section, a measure of the
concept of self-esteem has been included as the first of the two measures that were
used in this study as a part of the inner containment variables. Together with the
religiosity measure, this measure was used to operationalize the effect of inner
containment on deviant behavior among young adults.
Religiosity
Religion is a system of beliefs and practices by which groups of people interpret
and respond to what they feel is supernatural and sacred (Johnstone, 1975). On the
other hand religiosity is generally defined as the degree to which one believes in and is
involved in religion. It is also related to the degree of religious commitment. Johnson,
Jang, Larson, and De Li (2001) described religiosity as “the extent to which an individual
is committed to the religion he or she professes and its teachings, such as the
individual's attitudes and behaviors reflect this commitment” (p. 25).
It would be possible to say then that religiosity is capable of influencing an
individual cognitively and behaviorally. According to Mokhlis (2006), religious persons
have value systems that differ from those of the less religious and the non-religious. “A
highly religious person will evaluate the world through religious schemas and thus will
integrate his or her religion into much of his or her life” (Worthington et al., 2003, p. 85).
Religion plays a big role within society and has a lot to do with how people act
(Insoll, 2004). Mokhlis (2006) cites prior studies as evidence for the influence of
religious beliefs on behavior in areas such as parental attachment, clothing styles,
eating and drinking, the use of cosmetics, social and political views and sexual
behavior. Clearly, motives for participating in religious experiences are linked to religion.
51
Since religiosity is affecting the individual's behavior then it would be possible to
hypothesize that the religious commitment may also be extended beyond religion itself
and those people with high religiosity would be expected to exhibit a similar commitment
in other aspects of their life, such as commitment to family relations and social and
cultural norms. For example, according to Welch, Title, and Petee (1991), research has
shown that religiosity is a potent generator of conformity.
Also, given that religion plays a greater role in the daily lives of Muslims (a type
of bond that recent studies have used), individual bonds to society are said to be more
important in Islamic societies (Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006). For example, Hirschi’s social
bond theory did not include religious beliefs, but they are clearly representative of
conventional values and also participation in these activities.
In addition, according to rational choice theory, individuals who are seen as
strongly religious are more likely to experience shame from deviant acts, and individuals
who participate in religion-based social networks are more likely to experience
embarrassment from deviant acts (Grasmick et al., 1991). Thus, religious people are
deterred from committing crime because of sureness and harshness of informal penalty.
In the light of these theories, we can hypothesize that religion has deterrence effect on
deviant behavior.
There are numerous studies that report an association between religiosity and
deviance. Religious traits and behaviors of parents exercise important influence on their
children’s delinquent behavior (Dubin & Dubin, 1965). For example, Regnerus (2003)
found that parents’ conservative Protestant affiliation showed consistent direct negative
effects on delinquency. Moreover, he also reported that parental religiosity protects girls
52
better than boys among high school students. In an earlier study Burkett (1993) also
found that parents’ religiosity was a significant predictor of an adolescents’ delinquent
behavior.
Many research findings show consistently that religious beliefs and practices of
adolescents reduce their chance of being delinquent (Akers & Sellers, 2004). In recent
studies focusing on adolescents, Benda and Corwyn (2001), Johnson, Jang, Larson,
and Li (2001), and Pearce and Haynie (2004) also reported that religiosity is
significantly negatively related to crime. Furthermore, Welch, Tittle, and Grasmick
(2006) examined whether the ability of personal Christian religiosity to induce social
conformity is spuriously due to self-control. They found that personal religiosity and selfcontrol show a statistically significant, independent negative relationship with many of
forms of projected misbehavior.
On the other hand, Ellis and Peterson (1995) explored this relationship at a
societal level using a dataset from thirteen nations. Their findings suggested that more
religious countries had lower crime rates than less religious countries. They also found
at the individual level that greater religiosity is associated with lower criminality.
Similarly, in another societal level research study, Chadwick and Top (1993) tested the
religious ecology hypothesis asserting that religion is negatively related to delinquency
only in a highly religious climate. In this study they failed to support the religious ecology
hypothesis and they found that religiosity has a strong negative relationship to
delinquency in both the high and low religious ecologies.
The research on the effect of religiosity on alcohol consumption and drug use is
plentiful and especially consistent. Dudley, Mutch, and Cruise (1987) examined the
53
factors which predict frequency of drug usage by youth. As a reason for not using drugs,
“my commitment to Christ” was the strongest predictor. Moreover, regular participation
in family worship, which is a part of family rituals, was most highly related to selfrestraint from drugs. In different studies Amoateng and Bahr (1986), Burkett (1993),
Benda (2002), Clarke, Beeghley, and Cochran (1990), Hadaway, Elifson, and Peterson
(1984), Marcos, Bahr, and Johnson (1986), McIntosh, Fitch, Wilson, and Nyberg (1981),
and Perkins (1985) reported varied degrees of significant negative relationship between
religiosity and alcohol consumption and/or drug use.
Other than studies focusing on alcohol and drug problems, there are also studies
that focused on different forms of deviant behavior. For example, in their study Stack
and Kanavy (1983) reported a negative association between the influence of
Catholicism (religiosity) and forcible rape. In another study Grasmick, Bursik, and
Cochran (1991) examined the relationship between religiosity and taxpayers’
inclinations to cheat. They found that religion’s internal control process inhibits illegal
behavior that makes more religious taxpayers to be less likely to cheat.
Johnson, Jang, Li, and Larson (2000) studied the degree to which an individual’s
religious involvement significantly mediates and buffers the effects of neighborhood
disorder on youth crime. They employed data from the National Youth Survey and
focused on Black Americans. They found that the effects of neighborhood disorder on
crime among black youth are partly mediated by an individual’s religious involvement. In
addition, the involvement of black American youth in religious institutions significantly
buffers the effects of neighborhood disorder on crime.
54
In a recent study, Kerley, Matthews, and Blanchard (2005) found that religiosity
directly lessened the likelihood of arguing and indirectly lessened the likelihood of
fighting among inmates. They concluded that “the efficacy of religiosity and religious
programs for individuals in prison rests on whether they can promote basic social
behaviors” (Kerley et al., 2005, p. 443). Their study also showed that religiosity could
lessen the incidence of engaging in negative behavior, even in an exceptionally
negative context such as a prison institution.
On the other hand, some studies reported weak relationships or no relationship
between religiosity and deviant behavior. For example, Hirschi and Stark (1969) found
that religion was unrelated to delinquency. In their study Sloane and Potvin (1986)
found weak associations for some crimes, and no association for others. In a more
recent study Benda and Corwyn (1997) explored the relationship between religion and
delinquency among high schools students. When they only control for demographics,
while examining measures of church attendance and religiosity, they found that
religiosity is only negatively related to status offenses and not to crime.
As this literature suggests, religion is one of the factors that affects the likelihood
of engaging in deviant behavior. Furthermore, consistent with the control theory
tradition, Nagasawa et al. (2000) also included religious beliefs as mechanisms that
ensure adolescents' conformance to society's rules along with family, school, moral
values, and friends.
In this study, a measure of religiosity will be used as the second aspect of the
inner containment, and will be used to help examine the effect of inner containment on
deviant behavior among young adults. The role of risk factors in the manifestation of
55
deviant behavior at the individual, family, and environmental levels will be examined in
the next section.
Risk Factors
Researchers want to learn what makes some young people more vulnerable than
others to committing deviant acts (Roberts, 2002). In addition to the social control
variables of inner and outer containment, studies have identified several social and
demographic characteristics that have been classified as risk factors for deviant
behavior (Breaking New Ground for Youth at Risk, 1990; Dryfoos, 1990; and Garbarino
& Abramowitz, 1992).
A risk factor is a variable that predicts an increased probability of later offending
(Kazdin, Kraemer, & Kessler, 1997). Literature on deviant behavior has shown that
there are several risk factors associated with the likelihood of engaging in deviant
behavior. According to Farrington and Welsh (2007) these factors can be found at the
individual, family, and environmental levels.
According to Farrington (2006) “among the most important individual factors that
predict offending are low intelligence and attainment, personality and temperament,
empathy and impulsiveness” (p. 9). In addition to this, in their discussion of family and
environmental factors Farrington and Welsh (2007) note that “the strongest family factor
that predicts offending is usually criminal or antisocial parents” (p. 4). Other quite strong
and replicable family factors that predict offending are large family size, poor parental
supervision, parental conflict, and disrupted families. At the environmental level, the
strongest factors that predict offending are growing up in a low socioeconomic status
56
household, associating with delinquent friends, attending high-delinquency-rate schools,
and living in deprived areas.
Other than the major variables of the model, some of the risk factors that are
mentioned above are included in this study. Furthermore, other risk factors that are
predictors of offending behavior in other research are presented in this study. At the
individual level, age, gender and low school attainment are included in this study as a
risk factor. At the family level, family size and structure, parental involvement and the
household’s socioeconomic status, as well as the parents' deviance are included as
predictors of offending. Characteristics of neighborhood in which one grew up and
associating with delinquent friends are the environmental risk factors that are included
in this study.
As previously mentioned in the discussion of containment theory, Reckless
(1973b) included some of these risk factors in his model. Namely, he included family
structure, socioeconomic status, and type of neighborhood as outer containment
variables. In the remainder of this section, a discussion of these factors and their
relation to deviant behavior will be presented.
Risk Factors at the Individual Level
First of all researchers have found that young people are more likely to engage in
criminal activities than older persons (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 1996; Shoemaker,
2005). As Simons, Simons, and Wallace (2004) put it, “results from a variety of
longitudinal studies show that children who are aggressive and noncompliant during
elementary school are at a risk for adolescent and adult crime” (p. 16). Moreover,
according to Flanagan and Maguire (1990) criminal and delinquent behavior rises
57
dramatically during adolescence, peaks at about 16 or 17, and then declines over the
remainder of the life span.
Another important aspect of the age factor is early pregnancy. According to
Smith et al. (2000), since involvement in juvenile delinquency predicts an increased
likelihood of an early pregnancy, the link between teenage parenting and juvenile
delinquency may be one aspect of the link between criminal parents and delinquent
children. However, Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, and Silva (2001) state that family risk factors
would have different effects at different ages. So, the same risk factor might have
different degrees of effect on the child based on the child’s age.
In terms of the impact of gender on offending, Reid (1997) found that men were
more likely than women to commit crimes. Recent research indicates that men account
for 83% arrested for violent crimes and 72% arrested for property crimes (Bartollas &
Miller, 2001). Boys are also more likely than girls to commit crimes among juveniles.
However, “the female proportion of delinquency cases increased steadily from 19% in
1991 to 26% in 2002” (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 161). With relation to the other risk
factors, it has been documented that the socialization process works differently for boys
and girls (MacDonald & Parke, 1986; Cerulo, 1997; Ferree & Hall, 2000; Macfie, Houts,
McElwain, & Cox, 2005; Ishak, Tamis-LeMonda, & Adolph, 2007). So, family and
environmental factors might be expected to have different effects on boys and girls. For
example, boys are more likely to receive physical punishment from parents (Smith &
Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Supporting this perspective, Moffitt et al. (2001) also found that
boys were exposed to more risk factors.
58
West (1993) found that low school attainment successfully predicted chronic
offenders. Moreover, as a result of their research, Loeber and Dishion (1983) concluded
that educational attainment is one of the most important predictors of offending. In two
different studies that were conducted in 1992, Farrington found similar results between
low school attainment and offending. In the first study Farrington (1992) stated that low
school attainment predicted both juvenile and adult convictions. Furthermore, in his
second study he found that low school attainment predicted self-reported delinquency
almost as well as convictions (Farrington, 1992a). Kruttschnitt, Heath, and Owens
(1986) found similar results, concluding that poor performance in school was
significantly associated with violent crime in adulthood.
Similarly, other researchers have found that positive attachment to school, higher
academic achievement, and involvement in school activities is associated with lower
rates of delinquency (Hirschi, 1969; Empey & Lubek, 1979). Also, school failure was
found to be associated with delinquent behavior (Cohen, 1955; Lynam, Moffitt, &
Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993).
Risk Factors at the Family Level
The association between risk factors at the family level and child outcomes has
been widely studied. Researchers have confirmed that family factors are important
predictors of offending. Loeber and Dishion (1983) and Loeber and Stouthamer-Lober
(1986) found that separation from a parent, parental rejection of children, poor parental
supervision, large family size, and antisocial parents are among the most important risk
factors at the family level. In addition, Lipsey and Derzon (1998) found that low
59
socioeconomic status of the family is also one of the best explanatory predictors of
offending.
One of these risk factors at the family level is the structure of the family. Snyder
and Sickmund (2006) reported that “seven out of ten juveniles in the U.S. live with
married parents” (p. 10). In general, the research finds that children who are separated
from a biological parent are more likely to offend than children from intact families
(Farrington & Welsh, 2007). “Juveniles who lived with both biological parents had lower
lifetime prevalence of law violating behaviors than did juveniles who lived in other family
types” (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 72). Broken homes could be the result of divorce,
parent abandonment, a deceased parent, a parents’ alcohol/drug problem or any other
reason that has pulled the parents apart from each other and created a risky
environment for the teenager (Rebellon, 2002). Wells and Rankin (1991), and Rankin
and Kern (1994) suggested that there is a strong relationship between broken homes
and delinquency.
Research has found that men who grow up in non-intact families enter lower
status occupations than men who grow up in intact families, and there is less
intergenerational inheritance in non-intact families (Biblarz & Raftery, 1993). Astone and
McLanahan (1991) found that those who lived with single parents and stepparents when
growing up reported that their parents had lower educational expectations of them,
provided less monitoring of school work, and less supervision of social activities than
children who grew up in intact families. Simons et al. (2005) also found that divorced
fathers and mothers were twice as likely as married parents to provide less monitoring,
less consistent discipline and to place fewer demands on their children.
60
“The non-intact homes are more strongly related to delinquency when they are
caused by parental separation or divorce rather than by death” (Farrington, 2006, p. 25).
Flowers (2001) found that broken homes increase the likelihood of involvement in
delinquency by exerting financial pressure on the children who live in them.
Another important factor that is related with the family is the degree of parental
involvement. According to Newson and Newson (1989) low parental involvement in the
child’s activities predicts delinquency. In addition, West and Farrington (1973) also
found that having a father who never joined in the boy’s leisure activities doubles his
risk of conviction.
The relationship between parental deviance and juvenile delinquency has been
established (McCord 1977; Robins 1979; Reid, 1997; Geismar & Wood, 1986). “Having
a convicted father, mother, brother, or sister predicted a boy’s own convictions, and all
four relatives were independently important as predictors” (Farrington, Barnes, &
Lambert, 1996, p. 47). Furthermore, Lauritsen (1993) found considerable sibling
resemblance in delinquency rates.
The association between parental deviance and juvenile deviance is even
stronger when both parents are involved in criminal behavior (Robins, West, & Herjanic,
1975). Roberts (2002) reported that a national survey of institutionalized juveniles
revealed twenty-five percent of them had fathers who had been incarcerated, nine
percent had mothers who had gone to jail, twenty-five percent had a sibling who had
served time, and thirteen percent had extended family members who had been in jail.
Over fifty percent of the juveniles reported that they have had family members who have
61
been or are currently incarcerated. A later study revealed that a third of the adult
prisoners had family members who had been incarcerated (Stark, 1996).
However, Sampson and Laub (1993) found that maternal and paternal deviance
did not predict a boy’s delinquency after controlling for other family factors including
poor supervision, harsh discipline, parental rejection, low attachment, and large family
size. McCord (1977) also found that cold and rejecting parents tend to have delinquent
children. Moreover, parents’ substance use has also been found to predict delinquency
of children (Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1998). Similarly,
Plass and Hotaling (1995) showed that children who had who had run away from home
as children were more likely to runaway than those, whose parents had no such
experience during their childhood.
The socioeconomic status of the individual is viewed as a major risk factor.
Cohen (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) are among the first major figures who
found an association between socioeconomic deprivation and delinquency. One of the
most important variables that explain the socioeconomic status of a family is its income
level. According to McClanahan (1985) income level is one of the most significant
variables associated with family structure. Socioeconomic status appears to influence
family functioning in different ways. McLeod and Shanahan (1993) found that poverty
can contribute to higher rates of psychological distress in children.
For example, Whitbeck, Hoyt, and Ackley (1997) provide evidence of a positive
association between parental unemployment and parental violence toward children. In
addition, McLoyd (1989) indicates that the family poverty increases the risk of cruel and
contradictory punishment. Moreover, Sampson and Laub found that both receiving
62
social assistance (1993) and having low socioeconomic status (1994) are also related to
harsh and inconsistent parental discipline.
The findings of a subsequent study indicate that low hourly wages in low-income
families added to family stress and this was associated with lower levels of selfregulation among adolescents (Brody, Stoneman, & Flor, 1996). Brownfield and
Sorenson (1994) also found that economic deprivation is an important predictor of
offending. In a more recent study, Ferguson, Swain-Campbell, and Horwood (2004)
reported that living in a low socioeconomic family between birth and age 6, predicted
delinquency between ages 15 and 21.
Risk Factors at the Environmental Level
It has been reported in various studies that crime rates vary with area of
residence and there is a clear interaction between individuals and communities in which
they live. For example Simpson, Dinitz, Kay and Reckless (1960) reported that whether
a particular child becomes delinquent or not depends upon the area where a child lives.
Furthermore, Geismar and Wood (1986) stated that the neighborhood in which one
spends their formative years provides the physical, social, and economic context in
which attitudes and behaviors are formed. Because of these reasons various
researches were conducted to explain the relationship between the neighborhood
quality and crime.
The focus of the classical research conducted by Shaw and McKay (1942) in
Chicago was the distribution of crime rates in different neighborhoods. They found that
the juvenile delinquency rate is higher in disorganized neighborhoods. Bursik (1988)
also linked high juvenile crime rates with social disorganization of an area. Simcha-
63
Fagan and Schwartz (1986) listed the basic characteristics of disorganized
neighborhoods as high dropout rates, high rates of population turnover, high
unemployment, little potential for employment, and high crime rates.
Most recently, Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) reported that the most
important neighborhood predictors of offending were concentrated disadvantage,
immigration concentration, residential instability, and low levels of informal social
control. Their study also shows similarities with the previous studies documenting the
effect of neighborhood on deviant behavior. As a result, there is often institutional
instability that could contribute to weak socialization.
Additionally, there is another argument containing two beliefs about the
relationship between young people and crime. “One is that young people are drawn into
crime to the extent that they succumb to the malign influence of less law abiding
youngsters” (Emler, 2001, p. 16). Associating with delinquent friends is an important risk
factor that predicts offending. According to Kaplan, Johnson and Bailey (1987), “a
delinquent inclination leads young people into associations with peers who are similarly
inclined” (p. 278).
In their research Yoder, Whitbeck and Hoyt (2003) reported that youth gang
members are more likely to come from abusive and dysfunctional families of origin,
seek peers who can provide companionship, and social support, in order to survive on
their own, and engage in criminal behaviors compared to non-gang youth. Accordingly,
Reiss (1988) also stated that delinquent acts tend to be committed in small groups
rather than alone. Moreover, Reiss and Farrington (1991) reported that the tendency of
64
committing crime in groups is strong before the age of 17. They also stated that boys
tend to commit their crimes with other boys similar in age and living close by.
Gatti, Tremblay, Vitaro, and Mcduff (2005) also found that young people offended
more after joining a gang. This factor is also related with the rejection of the child by the
parents. By the same token, it is possible to state that children who are rejected by most
of their peers for various reasons might tend to associate with other delinquent children.
However, Jang and Thornberry (1998) found that forming friendships with delinquent
peers may even have an apparent benefit, since their research revealed that forming
friendships with delinquent peers boosted self-esteem.
Research has shown that children can effectively cope with one or two risk
factors but when confronted with multiple factors they fare less well. Garbarino and
Abramowitz (1992) found that most children could cope with multiple risk factors if there
were compensatory forces in their lives. However, experiencing more than two major
risk factors could jeopardize children's development and lead to problem behaviors such
as early pregnancy, drug use, and delinquent behavior. In this study, all the risk factors
identified above will be evaluated for their effect on delinquent behavior.
Conclusion
The theoretical framework and the major research concepts were discussed in
two major sections of this chapter. The tradition of social control theory was
summarized in the first section at the beginning of Chapter 2. In the next major section
discussion of deviant behavior, family rituals, self-esteem, and religiosity were
presented. Finally, a detailed discussion of the risk factors at the individual, family, and
65
environmental levels was presented. Following the discussion of theoretical framework
and major research concepts, the methodology of the present study will be the focus of
Chapter 3.
66
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The goal of this chapter is to describe the research procedures. To provide this
information, the chapter begins with a general discussion of the research design. The
next section presents information on the participants. A detailed discussion of the
survey instruments and the variables will be presented in the following section. The
chapter concludes with the discussion of the procedures for analyzing the data.
Data and Data Collection
This study is designed to replicate and expand on Roberts’ (2002) United States
study of the impact of family rituals on deviant behavior among young adults. The data
were obtained from two sources. The first sample is from a total of 205 incarcerated
juveniles at juvenile correction facilities and the second sample is from a total of 200
college students in Turkey. Detailed information about the participants will be provided
in the next section.
While the U.S. sample was designed as a self-administered survey for both
subsamples, in the Turkish case social workers in the juvenile correction facilities
administered the survey. However, a self-administered survey technique was used for
the college subsample just like the U.S. study.
Quantitative data for this study were selected from the Turkish sample that were
gathered from January 2007 through March 2007. The data used in this study were
collected by a group of researchers as a part of an ongoing research project in Turkey.
This study uses the initial data collected for that project. A cross-sectional research
design was utilized to examine the relationship between the research variables.
67
Even though this study used the data gathered from the initial 205 respondents
from the incarcerated juveniles, data collection is still going on under the auspices of the
administrators and the social workers who are working for the Turkish Ministry of
Justice, which is the national institution responsible for the courts and the prison system
of the criminal justice system in Turkey. No research can be done without the Turkish
Ministry of Justice’s approval in any prison throughout Turkey, and this research is
being conducted in all of the juvenile incarceration centers.
Since this study involves human participants, approvals have been received from
three different institutions. The data were collected in two separate institutions in
Turkey, so approval for human participation was received from the Turkish Ministry of
Justice and the Middle East Technical University. Moreover, an additional approval was
received from the University of North Texas for the present study.
Sample
A total of 405 respondents participated in this research. The unit of analysis was
the individual. A non-probability sampling technique was used to gather two subsamples
with one taken from a prison population and another from a college population. The
data from incarcerated respondents were obtained from eight juvenile correction
facilities in Turkey, and the data from non-incarcerated respondents were obtained from
college students at the Middle East Technical University (METU) in Ankara. The
distribution of the respondents is presented in Table 2.
68
Table 2
Distribution of Respondents by City
Location of Incarcerated
Respondents
Frequency
Ankara
Bursa
Diyarbakir
Istanbul
Izmir
Malatya
Mersin
Samsun
30
30
30
60
10
10
25
10
Total
205
Location of Non-Incarcerated
Respondents
Frequency
Valid Percent
14.6
14.6
14.6
29.3
4.9
4.9
12.2
4.9
100
Valid Percent
Middle East Technical University
(Ankara)
200
100
Total
200
100
The first sample was taken from the prison population. According to Turkish law
children of ages 11 through 17 years are detained in different facilities separate from the
detainees who are 18 years old or older. As of December 2006 there were 2016
juveniles incarcerated in these facilities. Since the number of juveniles who are
incarcerated is not very large, the juvenile incarceration centers are located only in
major cities, such as Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Bursa, Adana, Eskisehir, Samsun,
Diyarbakir, Malatya, and Mersin. If a child is sentenced to serve time, then that child is
detained in the closest incarceration facility where the child’s family resides. So, the
69
sample taken from these incarceration facilities are related to the place where the child
was living. Thus, it is not possible to find a child in an Istanbul detention center who was
living in Ankara before he or she was detained. Therefore, rather than selecting the
sample from one facility, various numbers of respondents were included in the sample
from different cities to represent the population.
For this research the sample for the incarcerated respondents was selected by
the administrators and the social workers of each juvenile detention center. Even
though the majority of the detention centers throughout Turkey were represented in this
sample, the final selection of the respondents was not made randomly, so the sample
became a non-probability convenience sample. The incarcerated juveniles in these
facilities were asked by the social workers whether they would like to participate in this
research. No incentives were offered for participation. The incarcerated juveniles had
the option to refuse to participate in the research. The ones who accepted to participate
in the research were interviewed by the social workers. The answers were anonymous
and only the data were provided to the researchers. The incarceration facilities kept the
original questionnaires.
The second sample was taken from the college population. In the Turkish higher
education system the students are required to take the National University Entrance
Examination after they graduate from high school. Based on the score that a student
gets from this exam he or she applies to a university. The students can apply to any of
the universities in Turkey and still pay the same amount of tuition regardless of the
student’s city of residence. A student pays a fixed tuition in any of these universities.
This is the reason why top-ranked universities attract the most successful students. For
70
example, Middle East Technical University (METU) is one of Turkey's most competitive
universities. Each year, among the students taking the National University Entrance
Examination, over 1/3 of the top 1000 students with the highest scores attends METU
(METU, 2007). As a result of the demand, most of the departments at METU accept
only the top 1% of the approximately 1.5 million students taking the National University
Entrance Examination.
In 2006 there were more than 21,000 students who registered at METU. Since
the language of education is English in METU, there is a specific department designed
to teach English to incoming freshmen. Because of the English requirement the
incoming students are required to pass a “Test of English as a Foreign Language” like
exam or to pass the English preparatory class, where they only take English courses for
one year. So, the students who are attending this course are the equivalent of freshmen
in the United States’ college education system. The English Preparatory Department of
the School of Foreign Languages is the place where all of the incoming students take
English courses together regardless of their undergraduate programs. Besides the
incoming students, it is also possible to find other students who are majoring in a foreign
language within the same school. Hence, the sample that was taken from the METU
was selected from among the students of this English preparatory program.
While the incarcerated respondents were placed in the local detention centers,
the non-incarcerated sample is free from the location of the respondent’s previous city.
So, by being one of the highest ranked universities in Turkey, METU attracts so many
students across Turkey. Hence, based on the structure of the Turkish higher education
administrative system, it would be possible to see students from all over Turkey
71
especially in metropolitan cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir. Because of these
reasons, drawing a sample of respondents from a major university will be enough in
terms of representing different geographical locations across Turkey.
The college sample was drawn among the English preparatory course students.
Just like the incarcerated subsample, the college sample was also a non-probability
convenience sample. The professors who were teaching classes in this department
were asked by the researchers to administer the questionnaire in their classes. The
students were asked by their professors whether they would like to participate in this
research or not. No incentives were offered for participation and the students had the
chance to refuse participating in this research. The ones who accepted to participate in
the research answered the questions during a class hour, so no out-of-class
commitments were required from the students. Completed questionnaires were
collected after the class and they were handed to the researchers by the professors.
The answers were anonymous and data entry was done by the researchers.
The two subsamples in this research differed significantly in terms of their legal
and developmental status. These two aspects of the respondents must be
acknowledged before analyzing the data. First of all, incarcerated respondents were
included because they represented the officially labeled deviant members in the Turkish
society. College students were included because they were more likely to represent
conforming members of the Turkish society. Second, the significant difference in age
also presents a fundamental problem in terms of comparing these two samples. It is
obvious that the age difference is the reason for the respondent’s different
developmental status.
72
Survey Instruments
Since this research is a replication of Roberts (2002) and Emmett (2000), the
measures used to facilitate replication, which were recognized as reliable and valid,
were also taken from their studies. The variables in this study were operationalized
through five survey instruments including:
[1] Demographics and Family Information Inventory (DFII) (Short & Nye, 1958;
Siegel & Senna, 1981; Thornton, James, & Doerner, 1982; Paternoster & Triplett,
1988),
[2] Family Rituals Questionnaire (FRQ) (Fiese & Kline, 1993),
[3] Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory-2 (CFSEI-2) (Battle, 1992),
[4] Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire (RBB) (Connors, Tonigan,
& Miller, 1996), and
[5] Behavior Index, which is the second part of DFII.
All five of the survey instruments had been developed and used in previous
studies. The survey instruments used in this study and their relative scale factors are
briefly itemized and described in the following table.
Table 3
Instruments
Questionnaire
Demographics and
Family Information
Inventory
Number of items
Categories
34
---
Elements
---
(table continues)
73
Table 3 (continued).
Questionnaire
Number of items
Categories
Elements
Family Ritual
Questionnaire
(FRQ)
56
• Settings:
• dinnertime
• weekends
• vacations
• annual
• special
• religious
• cultural
Culture-Free
Self-Esteem
Inventory
40
---
---
Religious
Background and
Behavior (RBB)
11
Behavior Index
15
• God
consciousness
• Formal Practices
---
• In past year
• Over
lifetime
---
Family Information Inventory
The first part of the Family Information Inventory (FII) was developed as a
demographic questionnaire by Roberts (2002), for her study. The FII was included at
the beginning of the survey. The FII was used to acquire information about age, gender,
academic status, family of origin and other relevant risk factors. In addition, participants
were queried about their participation in activities with family members inside the home,
participation in activities with family members outside the home, and deviance coming
from other sources.
74
The second part of the FII was developed by Roberts based on Short and Nye
(1958), Siegel and Senna (1981), Thornton, James, and Doerner (1982), and
Paternoster and Triplett (1988). It was used to measure deviant behavior. The original
measurement consisted of eighteen different forms of deviant behavior. However, the
Turkish version did not include questions related to sexual activities. These questions
are the last three questions of the original measurement. The questions were designed
to acquire information on whether the participant; [1] had sex relations with someone of
the opposite sex, [2] had sex relations with someone of the same sex, and [3] forced
someone to have sex relations against their will. These three questions were not
approved by the Turkish Ministry of Justice, on the basis that the participants of this
research were younger than 18 years of age and these specific questions were not
found appropriate for the respondents.
In the present study, deviant behavior was operationalized through self-reported
delinquent behavior. Delinquent behavior has been defined as the violation of the law or
the commitment of a status offense by a person under age eighteen (Hawkins, Smith, &
Catalano, 2002). The Federal Bureau of Investigation classifies crimes as index crimes
(Part I offenses) or non-index crimes (Part II offenses) (United States Department of
Justice, 2004).
The eight index crimes are criminal homicide, forcible rape, and aggravated
assault (crimes against persons), and robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson (crimes against property). Non-index crimes are all types of crimes not
considered as index crimes. On the other hand there is another category of offenses,
called status offenses, specifically created for juveniles. Status offenses include those
75
acts that violate statutes that are only applicable to minors (Conklin, 1998). According to
Steinhart (1996) “a status offense is behavior that is unlawful for children, even though
the same behavior is legal for adults” (p. 86).
In the present study, the incarcerated respondents and the college students
responded to a self-report instrument on delinquent behavior that included index crimes,
non-index crimes and status offenses. As stated above, self-reported levels of deviant
behavior were identified through the final questions on the FII. Respondents were also
asked to report the prevalence and incidence of their own deviant behavior.
Family Ritual Questionnaire
The Family Ritual Questionnaire (FRQ) was used both by Roberts (2002) and
Emmett (2000). The FRQ is a 56-item, forced choice questionnaire that solicits
information about frequency and perceived significance of family activities (Fiese,
1992). Based on the dimensions of ritualization posited by Wolin and Bennett (1984),
the FRQ assesses the degree of family rituals according to seven settings. These
settings are: mealtime, weekends, family trips/vacations, annual family celebrations and
gatherings, special events, religious holidays, and cultural and ethnic traditions.
Table 4
Settings of the Family Rituals Questionnaire
Settings
Meal time
Weekends
Trips
Definitions
Shared family meals
Leisure and/or planned activities on nonworking days
Events or activities surrounding any sort of family trip or
vacation
(table continues)
76
Table 4 (continued).
Settings
Annual celebrations
Special celebrations
Religious holidays
Cultural celebrations
Definitions
Yearly celebrations: birthday’s, anniversaries, first day of
school
Celebrations that occur regardless of religion or culture:
weddings, graduations, family reunions
Religious celebrations: Christmas, Chanukah, Easter, and
Ramadan
Celebrations tied to culture and ethnic groups: naming
ceremonies, wakes, funerals, baking particular ethnic food
Fiese (1992) and her colleagues (Fiese & Kline, 1993) defined the critical
elements of family rituals based on eight dimensions. For each setting there are eight
dimensions that are summed across the seven sections to create the dimensions of
occurrence, roles, routine, attendance, affect, symbolic significance, continuation, and
deliberateness. Items were scored across dimensions and settings, with higher scores
indicating more ritualization and more positive meaning within the family (Fiese, 1992;
Fiese & Kline, 1993). In addition, Fiese (1992) identified two primary factors of family
rituals: a routine factor and a symbolic factor. The routine factor is composed of three
dimensions that are related to the roles that family members played when enacting
family rituals. These three dimensions constructing the routine factor are the roles,
routine, and the continuation dimensions. The symbolic factor is composed of 5
dimensions that are related to how individuals feel about their family rituals. These five
components of symbolic factor are the occurrence, attendance, affect, symbolic
significance, and deliberateness dimensions (Fiese, 1992; Fiese, Hooker, Kotary, &
Schwagler, 1993; Fiese & Kline, 1993; Emmett, 2000; Roberts, 2002). Moreover,
77
Fiese's (1992; 1993) studies revealed that the meaning dimension plays a more
important role in how family members perceive family rituals than the routine dimension.
Table 5
Dimensions of the Family Rituals Questionnaire
Dimensions
Occurrence
Roles
Routine
Attendance
Affect
Symbolic significance
Continuation
Deliberateness
Definitions
How often an activity occurs
Assignment of roles, duties during activities
Regularity in how activity is conducted
Expectations for whether attendance is mandatory
Emotional investment in an activity
Attachment of meaning to an activity
Perseverance of activity across generations
Advance preparation and planning associated with the
activity
The FRQ has been used primarily with non-clinical populations, including
undergraduate college students, the students’ families, and couples with young children.
This is also consistent with the participant population of this study and the previous
studies conducted by Roberts (2002) and Emmett (2000).
The FRQ was essential in providing information about the respondents’ family
rituals. For the current study, participants were asked to think of how their own family of
origin typically interacted during the time when they were growing up. The information
was elicited by the FRQ in a two-step process in which participants first were asked to
choose one of two statements and then were asked to indicate how true the statement
was of their family of origin. While separate indexes can be derived for the seven
settings, the underlying dimensions may not be totally orthogonal, and predictive power
78
of the dimensions taken individually may not be useful (Baxter & Clark, 1996). Thus, the
individual elements of the FRQ will not be examined separately.
Fiese and Kline (1993) conducted four studies to establish internal consistency,
criterion validity, test-retest reliability, and parent-child agreement. In Study 1, internal
consistency was determined through the calculations of Cronbach's alphas, with the
scales ranging from .52 to .90. Subsequent studies confirmed the internal consistency
of the FRQ. In Study 2, criterion validity was established by comparing correlations
between the FRQ and the Family Environment Scale (FES). A positive correlation was
found to exist between the FRQ and the FES subscales measuring cohesion and
organization. Study 3 assessed the test-retest reliability of the FRQ. After four weeks,
the test-retest reliability was .88. In Study 4 they found that there was an agreement
among parents and one child in their perception of family rituals.
Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory
The Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory (CFSEI-2) developed by Battle (1992) is
also used in this study to measure self-esteem. This scale is a self-report and selfreferenced instrument designed for a broad age range. The scale consists of 40 items
and four subscales: general self-esteem, social self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and
defensiveness (lie subscale). With regard to the sub-scales, general self-esteem refers
to the individual’s overall perceptions of their worth (16 items); social self-esteem refers
to the individual’s perceptions of the quality of their relationships with peer (8 items);
and personal self-esteem refers to the individual’s most intimate perceptions of selfworth (8 items). The lie scale contains 8 items and provides a measure of
defensiveness. The items are divided into two groups: those which indicate high self-
79
esteem and those which indicate low self-esteem. The individual checks each item as
either “yes” or “no”. Scores are derived by totaling the number of items checked which
indicate high self-esteem, excluding the lie subscale. The total possible self-esteem
score is 32 and the highest lie score is 8. A higher score on the lie scale reflects less
honest responding. Based on previous studies, the classification of self-esteem scores
are presented in the following table:
Table 6
Classification of Self-Esteem Scores
Subscales
General self-esteem
Social self-esteem
Personal self-esteem
Total self-esteem
Very High
High
15, 16
8
8
≥ 30
13, 14
6, 7
6, 7
27-29
Intermediate
7-12
4, 5
4, 5
20-26
Low
5, 6
2, 3
2, 3
14-19
Very Low
≤4
1
1
≤ 13
Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire
The Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire (RBB) is a brief measure
of religious practices (Connors et al., 1996) that was used by Emmett (2000). Paloutzian
and Park (2005) stated that the RBB has good psychometric qualities and it is devoted
primarily to measuring private religious and spiritual practices. This 13-item
questionnaire taps two factor domains: formal practices and God consciousness. The
item content was designed to represent those behaviors traditionally associated with
religiosity (Connors et al., 1996). The items also reflect most recent activity and lifetime
activity, thus allowing for an indication of change in behavior. Although it does not
80
strictly reflect participation in Muslim religious activities, the RBB does address
behaviors more typically associated with traditional Western religious venues. However
Paloutzian and Park (2005) indicated that RBB is less exclusively Christian in focus
than many other scales.
The RBB was originally developed for use in a national survey of 1,637 alcohol
abusers (Project MATCH Research Group, 1993). The RBB taps relatively
unsophisticated religiosity rather than spirituality which makes it an appropriate measure
for this study that is addressing young adults.
Variables
This section presents the variables used in this study. The instruments that were
discussed in the previous section formed the questionnaire that was developed to
gather information related to the research questions. The questions were suggested by
the theoretical perspective and previous research. The variables and related composite
measures that were formed for each of the survey instruments are presented in this
section.
Composite Measures
Creating composite measures from individual items is a common practice in
statistical applications. Several alternative composite formation methods have been
applied in the literature (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). Bagozzi and Edwards (1998)
provided descriptions for three alternative composite formation models. These three
models are:
1. The total disaggregation model: In this model all relevant items are treated as
indicators of the latent construct of interest. The benefit of this model is the
81
ability to evaluate the effect of each item in a scale.
2. The partial aggregation model: This model involves the combination of items
into subsets. The items of each subset are treated as indicators of the latent
constructs.
3. The total aggregation model: This model combines all items in a particular
scale into a single indicator of the latent construct.
In the present study the partial aggregation and the total aggregation models
were used to create composite measures through summing items into several latent
constructs or a single latent construct.
Sample size is also an important factor in composite measures. According to
Landis et al. (2000) the number of cases must be significantly larger than the number of
parameters estimated. Just as there are alternative models for creating composite
measures, there are also several different perspectives concerning necessary sample
sizes that vary by the statistical procedures. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) stated that a
minimum required sample size was 150, whereas Kelloway (1998) suggested that at
least 200 observations represented an appropriate minimum. Alternatively, Bentler and
Chou (1987) suggested that the ratio of sample size to estimated parameters be
between 5:1 and 10:1.
In the present study the sample size is 405, including two subsamples of 200 and
205 participants in each of them. So, based on the criterion provided by Bentler and
Chou (1987), Anderson and Gerbing (1988), Kelloway (1998), and Landis et al (2000)
the present study has the necessary sample size with regard to construction of
82
composite measures. In the following sections, composite measures formed for each of
the survey instruments are presented.
Family Information Inventory Variables
This inventory was taken from Roberts (2002), who also developed it for her
research. The first part of the FII contained questions regarding demographic and risk
factors, participation in conforming activities with family members both within and
outside the household, and participation in extracurricular activities. Except for some of
the questions on conforming behaviors, Roberts developed the rest of the questions in
this section especially for her study. On the other hand, the second part of FII was a
self-report questionnaire on deviant behavior developed by Roberts (2002) based on
previous studies by Short and Nye (1958), Siegel and Senna (1981), Thornton, James,
and Doerner (1982), and Paternoster and Triplett (1988).
A composite measure was computed along with the partial aggregation model,
through summing the individual items to create a latent variable; “Family Activities”, from
the first part of FII. Participation in conforming activities with family was measured by
questions 19 through 24. Scores for this new variable ranged from 6 to 36, and the
reliability of this new variable was measured by Cronbach’s alpha, with a score of .81.
Roberts (2002) indicated that these questions were taken from the National Survey of
Families and Households.
When the family activities of incarcerated respondents (Mean = 17.33, Standard
Deviation = 8.87) and college students (Mean = 17.16, Standard Deviation = 6.22)
compared, no statistically significant difference was observed (t = -0.54).
83
On the other hand, 8 composite measures were computed from the second part
of the FII. This part of the FII contained a questionnaire with fifteen questions, on the
self-reported levels of deviant behavior of the participants. The latent constructs of
deviance for this part of the study were determined according to the content and the
nature of the deviant behavior, not by empirical findings. The reason for this
categorization is the legal definitions of the behavior provided by the criminal laws. So,
running factor analysis or measuring the reliability of these composite measures cannot
affect the structure of the composite measures since they were determined before the
study by the law. Each of the questions had two parts. In the first part of the each
question, respondents were asked to report the prevalence and incidence of their own
deviant behavior. Following the prevalence and incidence measurement, they were also
asked to report if they were caught and if any action was taken as a result of that
specific deviant behavior.
The first composite measure of deviance was the prevalence of status offenses
committed. There were two questions on the deviance survey related to status offenses.
They were questions 1 and 14. After computing the composite measure through
summing questions 1 and 14 a dummy variable was created through recoding the
variable of “Status Offenses Prevalence” into a new variable for “Status Offenses
Incidence”, with 0 representing 0 acts of status offenses committed and 1 indicating that
the status offense was committed at least once. This recoded dummy variable “Status
Offenses Incidence” was the second composite measure based on the values of
questions 1 and 14 on status offenses. The same method was followed with regard to
84
computing other composite measures for the index crimes, non-index crimes, and total
crimes committed by the respondents.
The third composite measure of deviance was the prevalence of index crimes
committed. Questions 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 12 were the questions on the survey related to
index crimes. Once again, after computing the composite measure through summing
these six questions, a dummy variable was created through recoding the variable of
“Index Crimes Prevalence” into a new variable for “Index Crimes Incidence”; with 0
representing 0 acts of index crimes committed and 1 indicating that the index crimes
was committed at least once. This recoded dummy variable of “Index Crimes Incidence”
was the fourth composite measure based on the values of six questions on index
crimes.
The fifth and the sixth composite measures were computed for the non-index
crimes. The fifth composite measure of deviance was the prevalence of non-index
crimes committed. Questions 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 15 measured the non-index crimes.
Once again, after computing the composite measure through summing these seven
questions, a dummy variable was created through recoding the variable of “Non-Index
Crimes Prevalence” into a new variable for “Non-Index Crimes Incidence”, with 0
representing 0 acts of non-index crimes committed and 1 indicating that the non-index
crimes was committed at least once. This recoded dummy variable of “Non-Index
Crimes Incidence” was the sixth composite measure based on the values of seven
questions on non-index crimes.
The last set of composite measures was computed for the whole questionnaire.
The seventh composite measure of deviance was the total number of different deviant
85
acts committed. The composite measure of the “Total Offenses Prevalence” was
computed through summing whole fifteen questions. After computing this new variable,
just like the previous types of crimes, a dummy variable was created through recoding
the variable of “Total Offenses Prevalence” into a new variable for “Total Offenses
Incidence”, with 0 representing 0 act of crime was committed and 1 indicating that a
crime was committed at least once. This recoded dummy variable of “Total Offenses
Incidence” was the eighth composite measure based on the values of the whole fifteen
offenses. This variable is also used as the dependent variable for the regression
analysis.
Among the composite measures computed from the second part of FII, the total
aggregation model was used for only the last variable on the total number of offenses.
Other than this variable, the partial aggregation model was used to compute the
composite measure on prevalence and incidence of the status offenses, index crimes,
and non-index crimes.
The distribution of fifteen types of delinquent behavior by the categories of crimes
used in the present study is presented in Table 7.
Table 7
Distribution of Delinquent Behavior by Crime Categories
Crime Category
Index Crimes
Type of Delinquent Behavior
Taken a car for a ride without the owner's permission.
Broken into and entered a home, building, or store.
Used a weapon in a fight with another person.
Taken something valued at more than 20YTL but less than
700YTL
(table continues)
86
Table 7 (continued).
Crime Category
Type of Delinquent Behavior
Taken something of larger value (more than 700 YTL).
Used force or a weapon to take money or something of
value from another person.
Non-Index Crimes Used marijuana.
Used drugs or other chemicals to get high for kicks.
Engaged in a fistfight with another person.
Bought or drunk beer, wine or other alcohol without your
parent's permission.
Driven a car while strongly under the influence of alcohol or
other drugs.
Destroyed or damaged someone else's property on purpose.
Gone hunting or fishing without a license (or violated other
game laws).
Status offenses
Run away from home
Missed school without permission of parents
Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory Variable
This inventory required simple “yes” or “no” answers. The second edition was
standardized on nearly 5,000 subjects throughout the U.S. and Canada (Roberts,
2002). It had been approved for use with individuals ages five through adulthood.
For this study a 6-item subscale was created among the items that were part of
the personal self-esteem subscale. This revised personal self-esteem subscale was
included in the data analysis process since “personal self-esteem” is defined as that
aspect of self-esteem that refers to individuals’ most intimate perceptions of self worth
(Burnard, Hebden, & Edwards, 2001). So, the six items that are included in this scale
are presented in the following table:
87
Table 8
Revised Personal Self-Esteem Scale Items
Item number in the
questionnaire
12
17
22
27
34
40
Question
Are you easily depressed?
Are you usually tense or anxious?
Are your feelings easily hurt?
Do you feel uneasy much of the time without knowing why?
Are you often upset about nothing?
Do you worry a lot?
A composite measure was computed along with the partial aggregation model,
through summing these individual items to create a latent variable; “Revised Personal
Self-Esteem”. Scores for this new variable ranged from 0 to 6, and the reliability of this
new variable was measured by Cronbach’s alpha, with a score of .53. Roberts (2002)
indicated that these questions were taken from the National Survey of Families and
Households.
Family Rituals Questionnaire Variables
As also found by Roberts (2002), previous research using the FRQ has
determined that the FRQ has both a meaning and a routine component (Fiese, 1992;
Fiese, 1993). A discussion of these dimensions was presented in the previous chapter.
In order to determine if this was also true for the Turkish sample, a principal component
factor analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on the dimension scores of
occurrence, roles, routines, attendance, affect, symbolic significance, continuation, and
deliberateness.
88
As suggested by Fiese (1992; 1993), Emmett (2000), and Roberts (2002) the
dimension scores were summed across the seven settings. Both Emmett (2000) and
Roberts (2002) found a two-factor solution using an eigen value of 1 as the criterion. In
this study only one factor was found, using an eigen value of 1 as the criterion, for all
respondents, the incarcerated respondents, and the college students. Since the total
score of the FRQ was also used in the previous analysis, the same variable was also
used in the present study. The only difference was that the present study did not offer
an additional explanation based on the meaning and the routine dimensions since the
present data did not suggest such dimensions.
Based on this result, the only factor found in this study is called “Family Rituals
Total Score”. Moreover, the Cronbach’s internal consistency alpha values for the eight
variables representing the eight dimensions were; .92 for all respondents, .95 for the
incarcerated respondents, and .81 for the college students. Results are presented in the
following table.
89
Table 9
Factor Loadings of Rotated Factors on Family Rituals Questionnaire
Total
Respondents
(n = 405)
Incarcerated
Respondents
(n = 205)
College
Students
(n = 200)
0.775
0.801
0.562
0.825
0.865
0.630
0.846
0.880
0.709
0.785
0.840
0.693
0.768
0.875
0.656
0.816
0.856
0.713
0.851
0.868
0.765
0.805
0.872
0.560
5.241
5.880
3.554
% of variance explained
66
74
44
Cronbach's alpha values
0.92
0.95
0.81
FRQ Dimensions
Occurrence
(First variables of the seven settings)
Roles
(Second variables of the seven settings)
Routine
(Third variables of the seven settings)
Attendance
(Fourth variables of the seven settings)
Affect
(Fifth variables of the seven settings)
Symbolic Significance
(Sixth variables of the seven settings)
Continuation
(Seventh variables of the seven
settings)
Deliberateness
(Eighth variables of the seven settings)
Eigen values
Notes: Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation method: Varimax with Keiser normalization
Religious Background and Behavior Inventory Variables
The 11-item RBB inventory assesses lifetime and recent religious and spiritual
practices and has demonstrated reliability and validity (Reinert & Bloomingdale, 2000;
Freiheit, Sonstegard, Schmitt, & Vye, 2006). The RBB has two subscales: God
90
consciousness and Formal practices. The Formal Practices subscale of the RBB
measures behavioral engagement in religion such as attending worship services and
reading about one’s religion, and the God Consciousness subscale assess thinking
about God and religion (Freiheit et al., 2006). The God Consciousness subscale has
four items: thought of God and praying; both of these are assessed for the past year
and ever. Formal Practices has eight items: meditating, attending worship service,
reading scriptures or holy writings, and having direct experience of God; each of these
is assessed for the past year and ever. The latent constructs for God consciousness
and formal practice were computed according to the partial aggregation model, whereas
the latent construct for the total RBB scores was computed according to the total
aggregation model including all of the relevant items.
Table 10
Religious Background and Behavior Components
RBB
Components
RBB God
consciousness
RBB Formal
practices
RBB Total
Computed Variables
Total
Respondents
(n = 405)
Incarcerated
Respondents
(n = 205)
College
Students
(n = 200)
α
α
α
0.72
0.66
0.74
0.76
0.71
0.77
0.84
0.78
0.86
Thought of God and
prayed (both of these
is assessed for the
past year and ever)
Attending worship
service, reading
scriptures or holy
writings, and having
direct experience of
God (each of these is
assessed for the past
year and ever)
All of the RBB
variables
91
The RBB was also examined to address some possible self-report concerns.
Because each participant was describing both a level of belief and a level of past and
current participation, the possibility existed that self-report might result in inconsistent
reporting across time or modality. To examine this issue the correlation matrix of
different measures of religiosity is presented in the following table.
Table 11
Correlation Matrix of RBB Measures
Variables
1
2
1 - RBB Past religious behaviors
1
2 - RBB Present religious behaviors
0.77**
1
3 - RBB God Consciousness
0.88** 0.65**
4 - RBB Formal Practices
0.93** 0.84**
5 - RBB Total Scores
0.99** 0.84**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
3
4
5
1
0.66**
0.87**
1
0.95**
1
When the table is examined it can be seen that the participants were remarkably
consistent in both their self-described level of religiosity and in their self-report
descriptions of past to current behaviors. These elements all formed a series of
relationships that suggest that reported level in one section was consistent with reported
level in any of the others; what one said about one’s beliefs and what one practiced
both in the past and currently appeared to be consistent. Thus, the total score on the
RBB was representative of the score on each individual section, as well.
Techniques of Data Analysis
Data collected from this research were analyzed using Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPPSS) version 15.0 for WINDOWS. Different statistical techniques
92
were used to test the hypotheses. The analysis of data will start with the presentation of
descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic characteristics.
In order to test the first hypothesis (Family rituals, religiosity, self-esteem and
other risk factors will be significantly different between non-incarcerated respondents
and incarcerated respondents in Turkey) t-tests will be conducted for all of the major
variables and the risk factors for both the incarcerated respondents and the college
students.
Since the samples drawn from the incarcerated and non-incarcerated
participants were not matched, independent sample t-tests with the Bonferroni
correction will be conducted to compare the incarcerated sample to the nonincarcerated sample for the entire major variables and the risk factors. Weisstein (2007)
defined the Bonferroni correction as “a multiple-comparison correction used when
several dependent or independent statistical tests are being performed simultaneously,
but while a given alpha value alpha may be appropriate for each individual comparison,
it is not for the set of all comparisons” (Online document). Furthermore, he stated that
“to avoid a lot of spurious positives, the alpha value needs to be lowered to account for
the number of comparisons being performed” (Online document).
In order to test the hypotheses 2a (Family rituals, self-esteem and religiosity are
positively related to each other in Turkey) and 2b (Family rituals, self-esteem and
religiosity negatively affect young people’s engagement in deviant behavior in Turkey)
binomial logistic regression analysis will be conducted.
According to Farrington (2000), in the risk factor literature, it is common to
dichotomize both the risk factor and the outcome and to measure the strength of the
93
relationship using logistic regression. “Cross-sectional studies with binary outcomes
analyzed by logistic regression are frequent in the literature” (Barros & Hirakata, 2003,
p. 3) and it has become very popular among social scientists (Garson, 2006). Binomial
logistic regression is a form of logistic regression which is used when the dependent
variable is dichotomous and the independent variables are of any type. Garson (2006)
further stated that;
Logistic regression can be used to predict a dichotomous dependent variable on
the basis of continuous and/or categorical independent variables and to
determine the percent of variance in the dependent variable explained by the
independent variables, to rank the relative importance of independent variables,
to assess interaction effects, and to understand the impact of covariate control
variables. (Online article)
Conclusion
The research procedures were described in this chapter. The chapter began with
the presentation of the research design, which followed by the information on the
participants. A detailed discussion of the survey instruments and the variables related to
these instruments were presented. The chapter concluded with the discussion of the
procedures for analyzing the data.
94
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
This chapter presents results of the data analysis. Questions were developed to
gather information on variables related to the research problem. They were suggested
by the theoretical framework and previous research. The chapter begins with the
information about the demographic characteristics of the participants. In the following
section the results of the regression analysis will be presented.
Demographic Characteristics
In this section the demographic characteristics of the participants are presented.
Descriptive statistics were generated in order to profile the respondents’ demographic
and risk characteristics. As mentioned in Chapter 3, a total of 405 respondents
participated in this research. Two subsamples were taken - one from a prison
population (n = 205) and a second from a college population (n = 200).
In this section of data analysis the results of two different comparisons are
presented. Based on the level of measurement of the relevant variables, either chisquare or t-test was conducted to see whether the incarcerated respondents and
college students differed significantly on various characteristics. The responses of the
Family Rituals Questionnaire, the Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory-2, and selected
questions from the Family Information Inventory related to participation in conforming
activities and deviant behavior were compared.
This procedure was also used to test the first hypothesis of the present study,
which is; “Family rituals, religiosity, self-esteem and other risk factors will be significantly
different between non-incarcerated respondents and incarcerated respondents in
95
Turkey.” Beside the difference between these major concepts, differences between two
subsamples were also explained with regard to other risk factors mentioned in previous
chapters.
The analysis of data obtained for the present study starts with the FII. Questions
1 through 7 covered topics related to age, sex, highest grade completed in school,
attitude toward school, grades, and family structure. Questions 8 and 9 measured
attachment to parents by asking if the respondents would go ahead and do something
even if they knew their parents would disapprove. Question 11 asked if the respondent’s
family had ever been on welfare. The question about welfare was added because it was
felt that this was a more objective measure of social class. Questions 12 and 13 were
related to the type of neighborhood in which the respondents grew up and the crime
rate in that neighborhood.
Parents’ deviance was the focus of questions 15 and 16. Questions 17 and 18
asked about deviant friends. Roberts (2002) indicated that these two questions were
included because Reckless (1973b) found that delinquent friends were often present at
the onset of self-reported delinquency and for officially reported acts of delinquent
behavior as well. He considered delinquent friends to be part of the pull of the
environment (Reckless, 1973b).
Not all of these variables were used in the subsequent analyses but they were
included here to provide additional information about the respondents. The two
variables that will not be included in the analysis are the age and gender of the
respondents. As discussed in the Chapter 3, the two groups were not comparable with
regard to age. So, this difference also resulted in a significant difference between the
96
college students and the incarcerated respondents. The average age of the
incarcerated respondents was 16.22 with a standard deviation of 1.23 years, and the
average age of the college students was 19.45 with a standard deviation of 1.4 years.
As a result of this difference the college students are significantly older than the
incarcerated respondents (t = -24.5, p < 0.001). Even though the association was very
strong (Eta = .94), this was basically a result of the age distribution. Since the survey
was conducted in the incarceration facilities where the juveniles were serving their time,
the highest age was 17. However, the lowest age for the college students was 18.
The second variable that had the same problem is the gender of the
respondents. There were 205 male incarcerated respondents and no incarcerated
female respondents. There were 93 (47%) male and 104 female (53%) college
respondents. This difference in the sample in terms of gender distribution was expected
for two reasons. First, as mentioned in Chapter 1, there were only 12 females among
2016 total incarcerated juveniles in Turkey as of December, 2006. Furthermore,
research has shown that the female population is less than 15% in the prison systems
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).According to these two results, even though an attempt was
made to make the groups as comparable as possible, both the age and gender of the
respondents in these two groups were not comparable.
Since all of the variables mentioned above are categorical variables, except for
the age, a chi-square test was conducted to examine whether they were significantly
different between the incarcerated respondents and the college students. The result of
this test is presented in the following tables, showing that the incarcerated respondents
97
and the college students were significantly different with regard to all of these
categorical variables.
With regard to education, the difference between the two groups was in the
predicted direction, with the college students reporting higher levels of education. Data
indicated that 76% of the incarcerated respondents did not get education after the 8th
grade, 20% of them had dropped out of high school, and 4% got a high school degree.
This difference is also obvious in their grades and opinion on school. The percentage of
the incarcerated respondents who reported that they did not like school (34%) was more
than twice of the college students (15%). Parallel to this, majority of college students
(70%) reported that their grades were above average, while the majority of incarcerated
respondents (69%) reported that their grades were either average or below average.
Table 12
Demographics and Family Information Inventory Variables
Variables
Level of Education
< 8th grade
9-11th grade
12th grade
< 1 year of college
> a year of college
Likes School
Yes
No
Grades
Below average
Average
Above average
Note: *** p < .001
Incarcerated
Respondents
( n = 205 )
%
n
126
33
7
0
0
College Students
( n = 200 )
%
n
76
20
4
0
0
0
0
0
103
94
Test of Significance
Chi-Square
363***
0
0
0
52
48
18.53***
131
66
66
34
166
29
85
15
67
68
62
34
35
30
6
47
144
3
27
70
88.2***
98
In terms of family structure, contrary to what literature suggested, a significant
number of incarcerated respondents (86%) reported that they grew up in intact families,
similar to what college students reported (95%). Even though the difference is still
statistically significant, the association was very weak and the results suggest that the
dominant family structure in Turkey is still the intact family.
There were differences between the incarcerated respondents and the college
students with regard to doing something even when their fathers or mothers
disapproved, with 45% of the incarcerated respondents reporting that they frequently
would do something if their father disapproved compared to 36% of the college
students. However, the incarcerated respondents and the college students differed
more when it came to their mother’s disapproval, with 53% of the incarcerated
respondents and 29% of the college students reporting that they would frequently do
something if their mothers disapproved. Even though both results are statistically
significant, the association is very weak (Cramer’s V = .17) for father’s disapproval, and
it is weak (Cramer’s V = .26) for mother’s disapproval. Furthermore, to a certain extent,
the results confirmed that in both cases, as Hirschi (1969) suggested, the incarcerated
respondents were less sensitive to their parents’ expectations than the college students.
With regard to welfare, 30% of the incarcerated respondents reported that their
family had been on welfare while 18% of the college students reported that their family
had received welfare benefits. This is an indicator that almost 1/3 of the incarcerated
respondents spent part of their youth living in poverty, but again even though the
difference was statistically significant the association was very weak (Phi = .14).
99
Table 13
Demographics and Family Information Inventory Variables Continued
Variables
Lived With Both Parents
Yes
No
Father's Disapproval
Never/Rarely
Occasionally
Frequently
Mother's Disapproval
Never/Rarely
Occasionally
Frequently
Welfare
Yes
No
Note: ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Incarcerated
Respondents
( n = 205 )
%
n
177
28
86
14
College
Students
( n = 200 )
%
n
181
9
Test of Significance
Chi-Square
9.245**
95
5
10.23**
18
76
78
11
44
45
7
102
63
4
60
36
12
74
96
7
41
53
8
126
55
4
67
29
25.33***
7.86**
61
143
30
70
33
153
18
82
The types of communities in which the respondents were reared were
significantly different, but there was a very weak association (Cramer’s V = .2). Further
analysis of this variable revealed that more than 70% of the respondents were reared in
cities or metropolitan areas. This is an indicator that the Turkish society is becoming a
more urban society. On the other hand, the incarcerated respondents reported
significantly higher rates of crime in the neighborhoods in which they grew up. While
only 8% of the college students reported that there was a great rate of crime in the
neighborhood in which they grew up, this rate has gone up to incredible 38% for the
incarcerated respondents. Furthermore this relationship was one of the strongest
100
among all of the variables (Cramer’s V = .39). In addition, even though the incarcerated
respondents were exposed to more crime at home, with only 15% reporting that their
fathers were involved with the criminal justice system compared to 8% of the college
students and with the incarcerated respondents reporting that only 3% of their mothers
were involved with the criminal justice system compared to 6% of the college students,
these numbers were not as high as expected and the association in both of these
variables were very weak (Cramer’s V = .14 and Cramer’s V = .15 respectively).
In terms of deviant friends, 28% of the incarcerated respondents reported that
none of their friends were deviant while 68% of the college students reported that none
of their friends were deviant. Finally, only 8% of the incarcerated respondents reported
that they were members of gangs while 3% of the college students reported that they
were members of gangs. Clearly, these last few variables were indicators that the
incarcerated respondents were much more likely to be exposed to and reared in deviant
environments, compared to the college students. These results indicated that a larger
number of the incarcerated respondents might have experienced multiple risk factors,
which, according to Benn and Garbarino (1992), put them at greater peril for committing
deviant behavior.
101
Table 14
Demographics and Family Information Inventory Variables Continued
Variables
Community
Country
Small Town
City
Metropolitan
Different Places
Neighborhood Crime Level
None
Some
Great Deal
Father’s Deviance
None
Arrested
Probation
Imprisoned
Mother’s Deviance
None
Arrested
Probation
Imprisoned
Member of Gang
Yes
No
Deviant Friends
None
A Few
Some
Most
Note: * p < .05, *** p < .001
Incarcerated
Respondents
( n = 205 )
n
%
College Students
( n = 200 )
%
n
25
23
78
73
5
12
11
38
36
3
20
31
44
87
14
10
16
22
45
7
65
62
78
32
30
38
120
58
15
62
30
8
Test of
Significance
Chi-Square
16.55**
58.85***
9.07*
174
10
4
17
85
5
2
8
185
1
3
11
92
1
2
5
8.44*
200
0
1
4
97
0
1
2
190
1
8
1
95
1
4
1
6.19*
17
188
8
92
5
188
3
97
63.13***
53
100
12
25
28
53
6
13
102
132
50
4
8
68
26
2
4
The results indicated that the two groups differed significantly on most of the
continuous variables in the expected direction. However, some of the variables did not
differ between the groups as suggested by the literature.
The next variable analyzed in this section was the number of hours that the
respondent worked in a week: 80% of the incarcerated respondents (Mean = 3.78, S.D.
= 2.30) had to work in a job to provide financial assistance to their families, compared to
14% of the college students (Mean = 1.24, S.D. = 0.81). The difference between the two
groups was statistically significant (t = 14.65, p < 0.01) and there was a strong
association (Eta = 0.68). Unfortunately, families who are living in poverty depend on the
financial assistance of their children. This obviously hinders the opportunities for getting
good education.
With regard to the dimensions of family rituals, all but the “affect” dimension were
significantly different between the college students and the incarcerated respondents.
Moreover, the total score construct, which was computed through summing up these
eight dimensions, was also significantly different between the two groups. There were
moderate associations between the variables ranging from Eta = .38 to Eta = .55. These
results are consistent with the theory. In every single dimension the college students got
higher scores than the incarcerated respondents.
In terms of self-esteem the college students scored slightly higher than the
incarcerated respondents. However, the difference was not statistically significant.
Regarding to the Religious Background and Behavior questionnaire, incarcerated
respondents scored significantly higher scores on all dimensions compared to the
college students. Furthermore, almost all of the incarcerated respondents (98%)
103
identified themselves as believers or religious individuals, while 85% of the college
students identified themselves as believers or religious individuals.
Table 15
FRQ, Revised Personal Subscale and RBB Variables
Incarcerated
Respondents
( n = 205 )
Mean
S.D.
College Students
( n = 200 )
Mean
S.D.
Family Rituals Dimensions
Occurrence
Roles
Routine
Attendance
Affect
Symbolic Significance
Continuation
Deliberateness
Family rituals total score
14.48
14.78
14.28
14.86
15.84
14.59
14.85
15.80
119.48
4.49
4.16
3.84
4.28
4.59
3.98
4.44
4.19
29.09
17
17.44
16.63
16.02
16.55
17.39
17.15
18.67
136.82
2.60
2.77
2.72
3.15
3.90
3.47
2.96
3.19
16.44
-6.88**
-7.55**
-7.10**
-3.08*
-1.66
-7.52**
-6.10**
-7.74**
-7.36**
Revised Personal Subscale
2.49
1.55
2.53
1.63
-0.25
27.91
7.66
22.18
8.88
6.88**
13.05
1.70
11.45
2.54
7.39**
19.45
21.51
40.97
3.76
6.24
8.76
17.16
16.51
33.68
4.92
6.93
11.06
5.23**
7.56**
7.27**
Variables
Religious Background and
Behavior
Past religious behaviors
Present religious
behaviors
God Consciousness
Formal Practices
Total Score
Test of
Significance
t values
A further detailed examination of the variables measuring deviant behavior
revealed some remarkable results. There are two basic reasons for focusing on the
variables of deviant behavior. First of all, as stated above, in the present study the
104
dependent variable for hypotheses two is the “Total Offenses Incidence” variable that
measured whether the participant ever engaged in deviant behavior. The second
reason is the existence of two different dimensions of deviant behavior: prevalence and
incidence. Because of these reasons a detailed examination of the deviant behavior has
been conducted.
As expected, the descriptive statistics indicate that the incarcerated respondents
reported committing a greater variety of deviant behaviors than the college students.
However, with regard to status offenses, even though the difference is statistically
significant, 66% of the incarcerated respondents reported that they committed status
offenses while 44% of the college students also reported that they engaged in such
deviant behaviors. But the interesting part is that, approximately 60% of the college
students and the incarcerated respondents who reported that they committed status
offenses also reported that nothing happened to them as a result of these offenses.
The same was not true for more serious deviant behaviors. With regard to the
index crimes, 57% of the incarcerated respondents reported that they committed index
crimes, while 17% of the college students reported that they also committed similar
crimes. However, even more than the status offenses, 87% of the college students and
81% of the incarcerated respondents also reported that nothing happened to them as a
result of committing these crimes.
Similar to the index crimes, 86% of the incarcerated respondents reported that
they committed non-index crimes, while 48% of the college students reported that they
also committed similar crimes. Moreover, there was a significant difference between
these two groups of respondents when it came to the societal reactions and legal
105
actions taken against them in terms of non-index crimes. With regard to the non-index
offenses, 58% of the college students reported that nothing happened to them as a
result of committing these crimes, whereas this number is 31% for the incarcerated
respondents.
The last construct that measured deviant behavior was the total number of
offenses. The interesting part of this construct was that 42% of the college students and
11% of the incarcerated respondents reported that they had not committed any of the
15 offenses that were listed in the questionnaire. So, if we think about that 11% of the
incarcerated respondents who reported that they had not committed any of these
deviant behaviors, the data that were analyzed for the present study, would have
revealed different outcomes if there had been more questions on other offenses as well.
Table 16
Deviant Behavior Variables
Variables
Deviant Behavior Prevalence
Status Offenses
Index Crimes
Non-index Crimes
Total Offenses
Deviant Behavior Incidence
Status Offenses
Index Crimes
Non-index Crimes
Total Offenses
Note: ** p < .001
Incarcerated
Respondents
( n = 205 )
Mean
S.D.
College
Students
( n = 200 )
Mean
S.D.
15.45
10.50
33.07
58.26
31.84
38.24
105.36
154.27
17.63
4.71
18.65
41.10
31.89
18.62
40.48
72.38
-0.67
1.92
1.80
1.40
.67
.57
.86
.89
.47
.50
.35
.31
.44
.17
.48
.58
.49
.38
.50
.50
4.69**
9.02**
8.54**
6.97**
106
Test of
Significance
t values
Further analysis of deviant behavior variables revealed that the Turkish society
and the actors of criminal justice system have been considerably lenient to those
offenders, when the results were evaluated in terms of the societal responses and the
legal actions taken against the juveniles. These numbers indicate that the actors of
criminal justice system and the society in general have not been harsh on status
offenses.
Finally, the incarcerated respondents were much more likely to report that an
action was taken against them when they committed a non-index crime versus status
offenses and index crimes. This result could be interpreted as follows: when these
juveniles start getting involved in different offenses and became a known offender or a
usual suspect by the law enforcement agencies their likelihood of getting caught
increases even for less serious offenses.
The fundamental prediction of labeling theory is that being punished or negatively
labeled will increase one’s involvement in future deviant behavior (Smith & Paternoster,
1990; Zimring, 1998; Myers, 2006). However, according to the present study, contrary
to what labeling theory suggests, being punished or negatively labeled as an offender
might not simply be increasing the likelihood of engaging in future offenses but it might
only be increasing the likelihood of being caught by the law enforcement agencies.
According to the present study’s findings, a greater percentage of college students than
the incarcerated respondents reported that they got away with these offenses. So, not
having a negative label would make them “invisible” to the law enforcement agencies
and would in turn decreased their likelihood of caught by them.
107
After analyzing the data it was concluded that, overall, hypothesis 1 was partially
confirmed for the respondents, because the incarcerated respondents and college
students differed significantly on every variable in the predicted direction except
participation in family activities and revised personal self-esteem subscale.
Regression Analysis
The major premise of this research was that the independent variables would
have separate negative influences on deviant behavior. The results of the chi-square
and the t-tests indicated that the respondents differed significantly on most of the
variables. As discussed in the previous section the only two variables that did not
significantly differ were the two constructs of family activities and revised personal selfesteem subscale. The next step was to determine if these major variables accounted for
any of the variability in deviant behavior.
The discussion on the demographic characteristics of the respondents will be
followed by logistic regression analyses to explore whether differences in major
concepts, which were discussed in details in Chapter 2, could account for variations in
deviant behavior. In this section of the present study, a model, presenting the effects of
the major concepts on deviant behavior, was developed based on the logistic
regression analyses.
Regression Model
Hypotheses 2a and 2b stated in Chapter 1 suggested that family rituals,
religiosity, and self-esteem would be positively related to each other, and they would
negatively affect young people’s engagement in deviant behavior in Turkey. Consistent
108
with Reckless’ containment theory and as suggested by these hypotheses, a model was
constructed using logistic regression.
Four independent variables were included in the model to represent the major
variables. “Family Rituals Questionnaire Total Scores” was included in the model as the
indicators of outer containment. On the other hand, two constructs from the “Religious
Background and Behavior Questionnaire”, namely, “God Consciousness” and “Formal
Practice” constructs, as well as the “Revised Personal Self-esteem Subscale” were
included in the model as the indicators of inner containment. The dependent variable of
this analysis is the “Total Offenses Incidence”.
Before running the logistic regression for the whole sample the data were
checked for multicollinearity and outliers, and no problem was detected for these issues.
The correlation matrix for the independent variables is presented in table 17. The result
of the regression analysis is presented in table 18.
Table 17
Correlation Matrix of Independent Variables
Variables
1 - FRQ Total
2 - RBB God Consciousness
3 - RBB Formal Practices
4 - CFSEI Revised Personal
1
1
0.28
-0.14
0.16
109
3
4
5
1
-0.66
-0.01
1
0.11
1
Table 18
Logistic Regression Estimates for Deviant Behavior in Turkey
Predictors
FRQ Total Scores
CFSEI Revised Personal Subscale
RBB God Consciousness
RBB Formal Practices
Constant
B
-0.02
-0.03
-0.09
0.08
3.88
-2 log likelihood
Model χ2
Pseudo R2
S.E.
0.01
0.08
0.04
0.03
Odds Ratio
0.98**
0.97
0.92*
1.08*
393.45
22.85**
Degrees of freedom
N
* p ≤ .05 and ** p ≤ .001
Notes: The odds ratio is the antilog of the B
0.09
8
358
When the model is examined, it is possible to see that the model chi-square
indicated that significance value was less than 0.05. So we can conclude that the
research model adequately fitted the data.
The pseudo r-squared statistics are based on comparing the likelihood of the
current model to the "null" model (one without any predictors). “Larger pseudo r-square
statistics indicate that more of the variation is explained by the model” (Center for
Family and Demographic Research, 2006, Online document), from a minimum of 0 to a
maximum of 1. Two different pseudo r-squared statistics were provided by SPSS: Cox
and Snell r-squared statistic and the Nagelkerke r-squared statistic. The maximum
value of the Cox and Snell r-squared statistic is actually somewhat less than 1; the
Nagelkerke r-squared statistic is a correction of the Cox and Snell statistic so that its
110
maximum value is 1. So, the value of Nagelkerke r-squared statistic is reported as the
pseudo r-squared statistic of the research model. Based on these results, we can
conclude that, together the four variables included in the model, accounted for only 9%
of the variation in deviance of the respondents.
However, further individual analysis of these four variables indicated different
results. The individual effect of “Family Rituals Questionnaire Total Scores”, “God
Consciousness” and “Formal Practice” on deviant behavior is statistically significant,
while the individual effect of “Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory Revised Personal
Self-Esteem Subscale” is not statistically significant. The odds ratio values of each of
the predictors shown in the table are used to make predictions. Each of these values
represented the ratio-change in the odds of engaging in deviant behavior for a one-unit
change in the predictor.
The results indicated that, all other things being equal, engaging in family rituals
and having a God consciousness had significant negative effects, while performing
formal religious practices had a significant positive effect on the likelihood of engaging
deviant behavior. On the other hand, CFSEI Revised Personal Subscale also had a
negative effect on deviant behavior, but this relationship was not statistically significant.
The odds of engaging in deviant behavior are 2% lower for each one-point increase on
the family rituals index and 7% lower for each one-point increase on God
consciousness measure. On the other hand, the odds of engaging in deviant behavior
are 8% higher for each one-point increase on the formal religious practices measure.
Further analysis with the same variables was also conducted for the two
subgroups: the incarcerated respondents and the college students. The reason for this
111
analysis was to see whether the effect of independent variables on deviant behavior
were different for these two subgroups. The results of this analysis did not produce any
statistically significant relationship for either group. The model χ2 of two separate
analyses were not significant, so both of the models did not fit the data. The results of
binary logistic regression analysis for the incarcerated respondents are presented in
table 19, while the results of binary logistic regression analysis for the college students
are presented in table 20.
Table 19
Logistic Regression Estimates for Deviant Behavior among Incarcerated Respondents
in Turkey
Predictors
FRQ Total Scores
CFSEI Revised Personal Subscale
RBB God Consciousness
RBB Formal Practices
Constant
B
-.02
-.41
-.23
.03
9.59
-2 log likelihood
Model χ2
Pseudo R2
Degrees of freedom
N
* p ≤ .05
Notes: The odds ratio is the antilog of the B
112
S.E.
.01
.19
.14
.06
115.32
9.37
0.10
8
173
Odds Ratio
.98
.66*
.80
1.03
Table 20
Logistic Regression Estimates for Deviant Behavior among College Students in Turkey
Predictors
FRQ Total Scores
CFSEI Revised Personal Subscale
RBB God Consciousness
RBB Formal Practices
Constant
B
-.02
.10
-.05
.03
2.61
-2 log likelihood
Model χ2
Pseudo R2
S.E.
.01
.09
.05
.03
Odds Ratio
.98
1.11
.95
1.04
244.55
8.08
Degrees of freedom
N
Notes: The odds ratio is the antilog of the B
0.04
8
185
Conclusion
The results could be interpreted to mean that the respondents reporting more
family rituals and God consciousness are less likely to engage in deviant behavior. On
the other hand, performing formal religious practices was associated with committing
higher deviant acts. Further analysis also revealed that the research model did not have
a statistically significant explanatory power for the subgroups. Consequently, the data
gathered in Turkey partially confirmed both hypothesis 2a and hypothesis 2b for the
respondents, because the formal practices part of religiosity did not negatively affect
young people’s engagement in deviant behavior in Turkey. Moreover, self-esteem did
not significantly contribute to any of the variability in engaging deviant behavior.
Further elaboration on the results of data analysis that were presented in Chapter
4 will be provided in the following chapter. The focus of Chapter 5 will be the discussion
113
of the findings and their implications for future studies. Moreover, the findings of the
Turkish study will also be compared with the findings of Emmett’s (2000) and Roberts’
(2002) studies that were conducted in the United States.
114
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to extend knowledge about the deviant behavior of
young adults through using recently gathered data from young adults in Turkey.
Specifically, this study proposed that individual experiences such as favorable
perceptions of family rituals, higher levels of religiosity and self-esteem, would reduce
participation in deviant activities.
The discussion of the results of the present study will be organized by reviewing
the specific findings and also comparing the Turkish and American studies. This will be
followed by the limitations of the study. The final portion of the discussion will be
devoted to the implications of the results and suggestions for future research in this
area.
Discussion of Hypotheses
Since this study was a partial replication of two studies that were previously
conducted in the United States, the choice of measurement tools was as important a
factor as in those two studies. To measure the major concepts and other risk factors,
four instruments were used. The Family Information Inventory (FII) had two major parts.
The first part of the FII was developed by Roberts (2002), with the questions on various
risk factors as well as participation in activities with family members, and deviance
coming from other sources. On the other hand, the second part of FII was a self-report
questionnaire on deviant behavior developed by Roberts (2002) that was based on the
previous studies. This measure was taken from Roberts (2002) and replicated in the
present study.
115
The Family Rituals Questionnaire (FRQ) was essential in providing information
about the respondents’ family rituals. The FRQ is one of the first tools designed to
measure level of ritualization in families. This measure was used both by Emmett (2000)
and Roberts (2002) and replicated in the present study.
The Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory (CFSEI-2) was used to measure selfesteem levels of the respondents. For the present analysis a 6-item subscale was used,
which was created among the items that were part of the personal self-esteem
subscale. This measure was taken from Roberts (2002) and replicated in the present
study.
The Religious Background and Behavior Inventory (RBB) were used to assess
lifetime and recent religious and spiritual practices of the respondents. God
consciousness and formal practice subscales were used in the analysis. This measure
was taken from Emmett (2000) and replicated in the present study.
Different statistical analyses were conducted based on the data obtained through
these instruments. The following section discusses the hypotheses with regard to these
findings, addresses the similarities and differences between the Turkish and the
American studies, and identifies possible explanations.
It was suggested in hypothesis 1 that family rituals, the level of religiosity, selfesteem and other relevant risk factors would be significantly different between college
students and incarcerated respondents. The results of the data analysis indicate that
incarcerated respondents and college students differed significantly on family rituals and
level of religiosity while they did not differ significantly on self-esteem. This result was
expected, as previous literature indicated that the relationship between self-esteem and
116
deviant behavior is mixed. However, the differences in family rituals and performing
formal religious activities in committing deviant behavior were not evident.
As suggested by the first hypothesis, on average, those respondents who
reported higher levels of family rituals, higher levels of religiosity and higher levels of
self-esteem also reported less deviant behavior. Incarcerated respondents and college
students differed significantly on family rituals, religiosity and self-esteem. However, the
difference on self-esteem was not a statistically significant difference. In addition to
these major factors, the incarcerated respondents and college students differed on all of
the variables measuring the risk factors except for participation in family activities.
The results of this section are almost identical on most of the variables, except
gender, to what Roberts (2002) found for the American sample. As discussed earlier,
the gender distribution of the respondents was biased in the present study because
there were no incarcerated female respondents in the Turkish sample. However, there
are also very important differences. For example, measures of self-esteem and family
activities were significantly different in Roberts’ study between the incarcerated
individuals and the college students, while these differences were not statistically
significant in the present study.
Moreover, the most important difference regarding to the research question at
hand, was the different results in terms of prevalence of deviant behavior. Roberts
(2002) found that the prevalence of deviant behaviors, such as status offenses, index
crimes, non-index crimes, and total offenses were significantly different between the
incarcerated respondents and college students. However, even though the mean score
of deviant behavior prevalence in the same categories of acts were higher for the
117
incarcerated respondents than the college students in Turkey, the differences were not
statistically significant. On the other hand, the differences in terms of deviant behavior
incidence scores were statistically significant for these two groups in both of the studies.
This is also the main reason why incidence scores were used as the dependent
variable in testing hypotheses 2a and 2b. Another important reason why the composite
measure of deviant behavior incidence was used is that establishing links between
independent variables and each of fifteen forms of deviance separately would increase
the likelihood of measurement error. As a result, combining the fifteen forms into a
single scale seemed a better strategy.
Hypotheses 2a and 2b suggested that the family rituals, level of religiosity, and
self-esteem would be positively related to each other and they would negatively affect
young people’s engagement in deviant behavior in Turkey. Concurrent with Reckless’
(1973b) containment theory, this study also proposed that the outer containment
variables such as family rituals and inner containment variables such as religiosity and
self-esteem would be negatively related to deviant behavior.
The original hypothesis developed by Emmett (2000) and which is hypothesis 2a
in the present study, suggested that a relationship would be found between the FRQ
and the RBB. This suggestion was supported by Emmett’s analysis, which found that
increase or decrease on the FRQ scores were matched by similar increases or
decreases on scores from the RBB. However, even though the present study also found
a significant relationship between FRQ and RBB scores, this relationship was in the
opposite direction: increase in the FRQ scores were associated with a decrease on
RBB scores and vice versa. Further analysis of the correlation matrices also revealed
118
that there were also differences with regard to the FRQ dimensions. For example,
Emmett failed to find a significant relationship between RBB scores and FRQ’s dinner
and annual celebrations dimensions, while the present study found a significant
relationship on these dimensions but failed to find significant relationships between the
RBB scores and the FRQ’s affect and deliberateness dimensions. The results were in
opposite directions and different dimensions had significant relationships in both
studies. Obviously, the strength of such relationships was based on the different FRQ
dimensions. In conclusion, the results are mixed and both studies do not appear to
support a consistent relationship between religiosity and ritualization.
Furthermore, hypothesis 2b, which was developed by Roberts (2002), was also
partially supported in the present study. The findings of Roberts’ study provided support
for the idea that participation in family rituals and religiosity would decrease the
likelihood of committing deviant behavior. The present study partially supported this
idea. This study demonstrated that participation in family rituals also decreased the
likelihood of committing deviant behavior. However, religiosity, which was measured by
having a God consciousness and performance of formal religious practices, had mixed
results. While having a God consciousness decreased the likelihood of committing
deviant behavior, performing formal religious practices increased the likelihood of
committing deviant behavior. One explanation for this result could be that the level of
religiosity was measured after the individual committed the crime and was locked up in
an incarceration facility which might in turn make the individual perform more formal
religious practices in that confined environment.
119
Another part of hypothesis 2b was about the respondent’s self-esteem, which
was also a part of Roberts (2002) original hypothesis. A measure of self-esteem was
used in this study as part of Reckless’ (1973b) containment theory and the present
study proposed that higher levels of self-esteem would reduce deviant behavior.
Roberts (2002) reported a significant positive relationship between these
variables. In the present study, parallel to Roberts’ (2002) findings, there was a positive
relationship between family rituals, performing formal religious practices and selfesteem. However, contrary to what Roberts (2002) found, God consciousness and selfesteem had a negative relationship.
Furthermore, contrary to what was suggested in hypothesis 2b, the results of the
present study indicated that higher levels of self-esteem played no significant role in
reducing deviant behavior. This result confirms the similar findings reported by Roberts
(2002).
Therefore, similar to what was reported by Roberts (2002), there was no
significant support for Reckless’ emphasis on the role of inner containment as an
element of social control. However, the outer containment variable of family rituals was
significant in reducing deviant behavior for the respondents.
Based on the above discussions of the hypotheses, the most significant findings
of the study could be summarized as follows:
1. Family rituals and religiosity played very small but statistically significant roles
in explaining deviant behavior.
2. Self-esteem had no statistically significant relationship with deviant behavior.
Several conclusions can be drawn from these results. First, the outer
120
containment variables played a small role in explaining deviant behavior. The results of
this study suggest that, although the relationship was small, there is some association
with reporting higher levels of family rituals and committing less deviant behavior.
Second, the inner containment variable of self-esteem had no statistically
significant explanatory power for deviant behavior, which was contrary to what Reckless
(1973a) had predicted. In addition to self-esteem, the other inner containment variable,
religiosity also provided mixed results. For example, God consciousness had negative
effect just like family rituals, while performing formal religious practices had a significant
positive effect on deviant behavior.
The differences in the results could be attributed to environmental factors being
more influential than internal family processes in contributing to deviant behavior,
although the family process variables were significant. These results differed from
Reckless’ (1973b) proposal that inner containment variables were better predictors of
deviant behavior than outer containment variables. In this case, the outer containment
variables were better able to explain deviant behavior.
The present study showed that the causes of deviant behavior are complex and
varied, and are often external to the individual. As discussed in previous chapters,
research has indicated that multiple risk factors may put children at greater risk for
deviant behavior and certainly, the incarcerated respondents experienced more risk
factors and higher levels of them. Thus, there was only partial support for Reckless’
containment theory also in this study. There were also some limitations of the study and
the following section identifies and discusses these limitations.
121
Limitations of the Present Study
Several limitations related to the research methods and theoretical framework
warrant review in order to gain further perspective on the findings. First of all, the
research design was cross-sectional. With cross-sectional research, the data are
gathered at one point in time, and as a result, the information gathered may not reflect
the full scope and experiences of the respondents. Cross-sectional research is a
commonly used method of study in sociological observation. Neuman (2007) defined it
as “a form of research in which a researcher examines a single point in time or takes a
one-time snap-shot approach” (p. 81). However, a longitudinal research design is
required to document long-term trends or changes over time.
Another important problem of cross-sectional designs is the timing of the
research. Because of the research design, what we have done is to measure the risk
factors after conducting the deviant act. However, as mentioned in the previous chapter
risk factors predicted later offending. The controversy here is about the timing of the
measurement. For example, we measured the relationship between self-esteem and
deviant behavior. But we do not know the level of self-esteem before the respondent
engaged in the deviant behavior. So, we cannot be sure whether the level of selfesteem is increased, decreased, or stayed stable after the respondent had engaged in
the deviant behavior. Low self-esteem could lead to deviant behavior, or deviant
behavior could have resulted in low self-esteem. Think about drug use for instance;
where low self-esteem could be a result rather than a cause of drug abuse. We cannot
really measure this problem with a cross-sectional research. Longitudinal rather than
cross-sectional researches are needed to study them.
122
Another problem with cross-sectional design is the retrospective bias. As
mentioned above, when data are collected on only one occasion, it is called a crosssectional study. However, data could be collected on one occasion, but the information
obtained could be dealing with previous times. This is called a retrospective study
(Moss & Goldstein, 1979). Again, due to the design of the research, the respondent’s
recollections of childhood or previous years may be affected and biased by the deviant
act which in fact comes after the risk factors.
In this cross sectional study data were collected through surveys, which also
introduced some limitations to the study. “Survey research is the most widely used data
collection method” (Strand & Weiss, 2005: p. 123). “Survey is a research technique that
utilizes a questionnaire to collect data on a sizable number of subjects” (Thomas &
Smith, 2003, p. 57). Even though it seems easy for most people, conducting a proper
survey requires a great deal of preparation (Dobbin et al., 2001). Nardi (2006) argues
that “performing the entire process correctly is a skill that requires intellectual creativity”
(p. 29).
The survey instruments used in the present study were all intended to be selfadministered, although in this study social workers administered the instruments to the
incarcerated respondents. “Surveys are appropriate for research questions about selfreported beliefs or behaviors” (Freeman, 2007, p. 357). The purpose in administering
self-report crime surveys is “to get respondents to read the questions and mark down
how many times they have committed a serious offense and gotten away with it”
(O'Connor, 2005, Online document). There is always going to be a margin of error, but
the general information is gained and used in studies that help us learn more about how
123
to function in society. On the other hand, according to Hemenway (1997) this margin of
error issue may be more important in some cases. He stated that the “self-report
surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates of the true incidence of such
events and people could lie or exaggerate on these questionnaires (falsification),
particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability” (Hemenway,
1997, p. 1444).
Golub, Johnson, Taylor, and Liberty (2002) probably provided one of the best
summaries of the limitations of self report data when they found,
After comparing answers to criminal records checks and urinalysis screens,
things like marijuana use were most often accurately disclosed while involvement
in violent crime was least often disclosed, but if prior conviction matched selfreported data on prior convictions, then there was reason to believe that the rest
of the data was fairly reliable. (O'Connor, 2005, Online document)
For the present study, we do not have alternative mechanisms to cross-check the
outcomes of the self-reports, especially for the deviant behaviors, so there was the risk
of exaggeration.
On the other hand, the specific participant population may have been responsible
for some of the ambiguity of the findings. While there were variations within the range of
experience of the participants, that variation may be less than in the general population.
College students may have more shared than differing characteristics, thus making
statistical significance difficult to obtain.
The study did not show differences on the level of self-esteem. This problem is
also related to the retrospective characteristic of the research design. Because when
124
the respondents answered the questions on the self-esteem inventory, they were
directed to respond as they would have been before the age of 18. However, they were
probably more likely to have reported their current feelings. As a result, it might be hard
to predict the influence of self-esteem on deviant behavior when measured from a
retrospective perspective.
Similar issues are also applicable to religiosity. As a result of this major
weakness of cross-sectional designs, in which religiosity, self-esteem and delinquency
are assessed at the same time point, any self-reported delinquency predates current
self-esteem and religiosity. Consequently, any associations found between self-esteem,
religiosity and deviant behavior could be just reasonably interpreted as an influence of
delinquency on self-esteem and religiosity than the reverse.
Another limitation is related to the theoretical framework. Agnew (1991)
suggested that cross-sectional studies greatly exaggerated the relevance of social
control theories. His suggestion was that social control theories might better explain
deviance in middle adolescence than among older adolescents. He concluded that
researchers should view delinquency as an age-related phenomenon and should
consider different predictor variables for different stages of development.
Related to this limitation, the measurement of deviant behavior is also another
issue that must be addressed. Measurement deal with important aspect of categorizing
deviant behavior. Paternoster and Triplett (1988) suggested that self-reported
delinquent behavior would be better understood if it were divided into two categories:
prevalence data and incidence data. Furthermore, Ball, Ross, and Simpson (1964)
125
stated that the accurate delineation of the incidence and prevalence of juvenile
delinquency is an indispensable prerequisite to analysis of adolescent behavior.
Using prevalence rates or incident rates is associated with different advantages
and disadvantages. For example, according to Schulz (1999) “sometimes an individual
is victimized repeatedly, as in the case of domestic violence and child abuse.
Prevalence rates alone can underestimate crime occurrence and the severity of a
crime's effect on an individual” (Online document). On the other hand, Schulz (1999)
stated that “incidence rates more accurately reflect amount of crime. Ten rapes or
beatings of a spouse are ten crime occurrences even though the victim is the same
person. Earlier studies equated the number of victims with the number of crimes
underestimating the actual number of crimes” (Online document).
According to Westfelt and Estrada (2005) prevalence data may be regarded as
being somewhat more reliable because of the fact that an additional degree of
uncertainty is introduced when the number of incidents or offences is estimated. They
categorize these uncertainties in two groups. First, there is the problem of duplicate
reporting. If a number of individuals are victims of the same event, then this event is
counted several times. Second, there is always a higher risk for memory lapses when
the number of incidents is very high.
The deviant behavior studied in this research was only that which was reported
by the respondents, in contrast to recorded data. As Sutherland and Cressey (1974)
stated, individuals have a greater or lesser ability to be caught and reported as violators.
Surveying people about their own criminal activity has been a less formal way to gain
information about criminal behavior (Tittle, 1995). Various self-report measures of
126
deviance have been developed to explore deviant acts that may never have been
revealed through official reported statistics. Much self reported crime indicates that a
large percentage of deviant acts go unreported (Roberts, 2002). As a result, some
researchers think that self-report measures of criminal activity may provide additional
information about criminal behavior (Reid, 1997).
Policy Recommendations
Despite its limitations, the present study also makes contributions to the efforts
aim at reducing deviant behavior. Since the present study found significant support for
the outer containment and other risk factors, it would be logical to recommend programs
to increase behavior that would raise scores on the outer containment dimension. If
family researchers, family educators, school personnel, criminal justice officials, and
researchers want to reduce deviant behavior, the risk factors should be acknowledged
and addressed.
Many who deal with delinquency problem have been preoccupied with treatment
or therapy after the fact. But establishing prevention program should be another option.
For example, after school programs in the United States or in the Turkish case
establishing similar programs and summer camps.
The basic goal of such programs should be on the “development of attributes
suggested in containment theory. It would follow that if it were possible to increase
scores on containment scales there would be a chance that delinquency behaviors
would be prevented. Whereas this cause and effect relationship should be considered
with caution, it should not be ignored” (Richards & Myers, 1987, p. 45). Reckless and
Dinitz (1972) suggested a similar solution, but they also listed some basic difficulties in
127
these programs, such as; “attracting an appropriate population, high costs, and
difficulties in identifying non-delinquent activities which were attractive to potential
participants” (Richards & Myers, 1987, p. 46).
A recent example of a similar program was initiated by the Rize police
department in Turkey. A website that broadcast news on police (Polis Haber,
06/29/2007) reported that the Rize police department initiated a summer program to
prevent juveniles from engaging in deviance throughout the summer season. In this
program the police department offers a free bicycle course for the students and at the
end of the summer they donate the bicycles to the students who need financial
assistance. Even though this may seem like a simple project, through this project the
police can establish contact with children and can give additional education on other
issues.
The advantage of considering a theory such as containment is that programs can
be designed specifically to address the areas that need to be improved. Specific
activities can provide clear and straightforward means for improving performance on
outer and inner containment scales.
Richards and Myers (1987) listed some criterion that should be applied to such
programs as follows:
1. There must be an assessment of the individual's appropriateness for the
program.
2. There must be a willingness and commitment to participate in the program.
3. There should be opportunities to work as a group to solve common problems.
128
4. The participants must be engaged in activity that is both concrete and
physical.
5. It is necessary to carry out an evaluation of the participant's performance in
the program and an evaluation of how well the program met its objectives. (p.
50)
By developing appropriate programs and offering the programs regularly desired
long term effects are possible. These programs do not need to be carried out for long
periods; however they should be planned around a specific goal and must be held at
regular intervals over the long term.
Recommendation for Future Research
The results of this study indicated that the incarcerated respondents and the
college students differed significantly on several of the variables. This tells researchers
that there may have been some significant differences in the lives of incarcerated
respondents and college students at the individual, family, and environmental levels.
Future research should focus more on the risk factors at these three different levels.
The problems associated with the cross-sectional design of the research might
be prevented through conducting longitudinal studies. A longitudinal design can control
the timing of the research to establish causality between the risk factors and deviant
behavior. With a longitudinal research design, it is possible to repeat measures and
follow the same people over time. Since risk factors are suppose to predict later
offending, longitudinal rather than cross-sectional studies are needed to more
accurately assess there impact.
129
However in longitudinal studies sample size often becomes an important issue.
Generally, larger samples enable more sophisticated analyses and may provide better
evidence. Thus, one needs a rather large initial sample to include enough deviant and
non-deviant respondents later on to compare statistically with each others. This reason
by itself, along with the financial problems associated with a longitudinal study, explains
the rareness of longitudinal studies in deviant behavior. Furthermore, not only having
larger sample sizes, but also the development of more equally-represented groups of
incarcerated respondents and college students should yield more clearly differentiated
results.
Finally, the connection between religiosity and the full range of family rituals
merits more research attention. A clear grasp of these two concepts may have much to
offer to the explanation of how self, family, and the larger society are connected.
130
APPENDIX A
FAMILY RITUALS QUESTIONNAIRE
131
FAMILY RITUALS QUESTIONNAIRE
On the following pages are descriptions of family rituals and traditions. Every
family is somewhat different in the types of rituals and traditions that they follow. In
some families rituals and traditions are very important but in other families there is a
more casual attitude towards rituals and traditions.
On the top of each page you will find a heading for a family setting. Think of how
your family typically acted or participated during these events. Read the two statements
and then choose the statement that is most like the family that you grew up in. After
choosing the statement that is most like your family decide if the statement is really true
or sort of true for your family. Circle the statement which best describes the family that
you grew up in. Circle only one statement in each row.
When thinking of your family think of yourself, your parents, and your brothers
and sisters. Some of the family settings may also include other family members such
as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. However, try and answer the questions
as they best relate to your immediate family when you were growing up.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Read both statements then choose the statement most like your family.
2. Decide if the statement is really true or sort of true of your family and circle the
most appropriate statement.
3. There should be only one circled statement per line.
EXAMPLE:
MEALTIME
Think about a typical mealtime in your family when you were growing up.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really
true
sort of 1. My family regularly
true
ate meals together.
OR My family rarely ate
meals together.
sort of
true
really
true
really
true
sort of 2. In my family everyone OR In my family at
sort of really
true
had a specific role and
mealtime people did
true
true
job to do at mealtime.
different jobs at different
times depending on
needs at mealtime.
really
true
sort of 3. In my family mealOR
true
time was flexible.
Members ate whenever
they could.
In my family everything sort of really
about meals was
true
true
scheduled; meals were at
the same time every day.
THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS TO EACH STATEMENT SO PLEASE TRY AND
CHOOSE THE STATEMENT THAT MOST CLOSELY DESCRIBES YOUR FAMILY.
132
MEALTIME
Think about a typical mealtime in your family when you were growing up.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really
true
sort of 1. My family regularly
true
ate meals together.
OR My family rarely ate
meals together.
sort of
true
really
true
really
true
sort of 2. In my family everyone OR In my family at
sort of really
true
had a specific role and
mealtime people did
true
true
job to do at mealtime.
different jobs at different
times depending on
needs at mealtime.
really
true
sort of 3. In my family mealOR
true
time was flexible.
Members ate whenever
they could.
really
true
sort of 4. In my family, every
OR In my family you never
true
one was expected to be
knew who would be
home for meals.
home for meals.
sort of really
true
true
really
true
sort of 5. In my family family
OR In my family it was not
true
felt strongly about eating
that important if people
meals together.
ate together.
sort of really
true
true
In my family everything sort of really
about meals was
true
true
scheduled; meals were at
the same time every day.
really sort of
true true
6. In my family mealtime OR In my family mealtime
was just for getting food.
was more than just a
meal; it had special
meaning.
sort of really
true
true
really sort of
true true
7. In my family mealOR In my family mealtime was pretty much
time changed over the
the same over the years.
years.
sort of really
true
true
really sort of
true true
8. In my family there
was little planning
around mealtime.
sort of really
true
true
OR In my family meal
time was planned in
advance.
133
WEEKENDS
Think of a typical weekend with your family when you were growing up.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really
true
sort of
true
1. My family rarely
spent weekends.
together
OR My family regularly
spent weekends
together.
sort of
true
really
true
really
true
sort of
true
2. In my family
OR In my family there
everyone had a specific were no assigned
job to do on weekends.
jobs on weekends.
sort of
true
really
true
really
true
sort of
true
3. In my family there OR
were set routines and
regular events on
weekends.
In my family there
sort of
were no set routines true
or events on the weekend
weekends.
really
true
really
true
sort of
true
4. In my family
OR
every one was
expected to come to
weekend events.
In my family
sort of
members pretty much true
came and went as they
pleased on weekends.
really
true
sort of
true
5. In my family
OR
weekends were pretty
casual, there were no
special feelings about
them.
In my family there
sort of
were strong feelings
true
about spending
weekend time together
as a family.
really
true
sort of
true
6. In my family
OR
spending time together
at weekend events was
special.
In my family there
were no special
family weekend
events.
really
true
sort of
true
7. In my family
weekend activities
have shifted over
the years.
really
true
sort of
true
8. In my family there OR
was much discussionwas
and planning around
weekends.
OR In my family
weekend activities
have remained pretty
much the same
over the years.
134
In my family there
very little discussion
or planning around
weekends.
really
true
really
true
sort of
true
really
true
sort of
true
really
true
sort of
true
really
true
FAMILY TRIPS/VACATIONS
Think of typical family trip/vacation you spent with your family when you were growing.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really sort of
true true
1. My family regularly
spent time together on
family trips/vacations.
OR My family rarely
sort of
spent time together on true
family trips/vacations.
really
true
really sort of
true true
2. In my family everyone OR In my family people
sort of
had a job or task to do on
did what needed to be
true
family trips/vacations.
done and took turns
on family trips/vacations.
really
true
really sort of
true true
3. In my family there
OR In my family there
were times for something
set routines on family
new and there were no
on trips/vacations.
routines on family trips/vacations.
sort of
true
really
true
really sort of
true true
4. In my family it was OK OR In my family it was
sort of
if some members decided
expected that
true
not to go on family trips/
everyone would go
vacations.
on family/trips vacations.
really
true
really sort of
true true
5. In my family people
felt strongly that family
trips/vacations were
important family events.
really
true
really sort of
true
true
6. In my family trips/
OR In my family, the
sort of really
vacations were just a time
family trip/vacation
true
true
to relax or catch up on work.
was more than a trip;
it was a family togetherness time.
really sort of
true true
7. In my family there
OR
is a history and tradition
associated with "The Family
Trip/Vacation".
really sort of
true true
8. In my family there was OR In my family there was
sort of really
little planning around family
lot of planning and
true true
trips/vacation; we just went.
discussion around family
trips/vacation.
OR In my family there
was a more casual
attitude toward family
trips/vacations; no one
cared that much.
135
sort of
true
In my family, trip/
sort of really
vacation activities are
true true
more spontaneous and change
from year to year.
ANNUAL FAMILY CELEBRATIONS AND GATHERINGS
Think of celebrations that your family had every year when you were growing up. Some
examples would be birthdays, anniversaries, Mother's Day, Father's Day, Fourth of July,
Thanksgiving, New Years, and perhaps the first or last day of school.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
1. My family had
OR In my family there
sort of really
regular and several annual
were few annual
true true
celebrations.
celebrations or they
were rarely observed.
2. In my family people
OR In my family
sort of really
didn't have assigned jobs
everyone had a
true
true
for each celebration.
certain job to do
during family celebrations.
really sort of
true true
3. In my family these
OR In my family these sort of really
celebrations had no set
celebrations were
true
true
routines; it was hard to
pretty standard;
know what would happen.
everyone knew what to expect.
really sort of
true true
4. In my family every
OR In my family annual
one was expected to be
celebrations were not
there for the celebration.
a time for all members.
really sort of
true true
5. In my family there
OR In my family annual
sort of really
were strong feelings at
celebrations were
true
true
annual family celebrations.
more casual; people weren't
emotionally involved.
6. In my family annual
OR In my family not a
sort of really
family celebrations were
lot of fuss was made
true
true
important milestones to
over annual family celebrations;
be celebrated in special
members may have celebrated
ways.
but it was nothing particularly
special.
7. In my family the
OR In my family the
sort of really
way annual family
traditional ways of
true
true
celebrations are observed
celebrating annual family
has changed from year to year. celebrations have rarely changed.
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
sort of
true
really
true
8. In my family there was OR In my family there was
sort of really
a lot of planning and l
ittle planning and
true
true
discussion around these
discussion around these
family celebrations.
family celebrations.
136
SPECIAL EVENTS
Think of some special events that happened in your family when you were growing up,
that may occur in many families regardless of religion or culture. Some examples would
be confirmations, weddings, graduations, special achievements, and retirement parties.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really sort of
true true
1. In my family there
OR In my family there
were rarely special events.
were several special
events.
sort of
true
really sort of
true true
2. In my family people
OR In my family people
didn't have certain jobs or
had certain jobs to do
roles to do at special
at special events.
events.
sort of really
true
true
really sort of
true true
3. In my family there was OR
a set routine at these events;
everyone knew what would
happen.
In my family there
was not a routine;
every event was
different.
sort of really
true
true
really sort of
true true
4. In my family it was
OR
hard to know who would be
there for special events;
whoever could would show up.
In my family
everyone was
expected to attend
special events.
sort of really
true true
really sort of
true true
5. In my family special
OR In my family special
sort of really
events were times of
events were pretty
true
true
high emotions and feelings.
low-key; there weren't
a lot of strong emotions.
really sort of
true true
6. In my family special
events had deep
meaning for the family.
OR In my family special
events were the same
as other occasions.
sort of really
true true
really sort of
true true
7. In my family
special events have
shifted over the years.
OR In my family special
events are traditional
and are carried across
generations.
sort of really
true true
really sort of
true true
8. In my family there
OR In my family there was
was a lot of planning and
little planning and
discussion around these
discussion around these
special events.
special events.
137
really
true
sort of really
true
true
RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS
Think of how your family celebrated religious holidays such as Christmas, Lent, Holy
Week, Chanukah, Easter, Passover, and Ramadan when you were growing up.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
1. My family rarely
OR
celebrated religious
holidays.
2. In my family there
OR
were no set jobs; people did
what they could during
religious holidays.
My family regularly sort of
celebrated religious true
holidays.
In my family
sort of
everyone had a
true
certain job to do
during religious holidays.
In my family there
sort of
few routines during true
religious holidays;
activities changed from year
to year.
OR In my family it was
sort of
not expected to know true
who would be around during
religious holidays; whoever
could would show up.
really
true
really
true
really sort of
true true
3. In my family there
OR
was a set routine during
religious holidays; everyone
knew what to expect.
really
true
really sort of
true
true
4. In my family, every
one was expected to be
there during religious
holidays.
really
true
really sort of
true true
5. In my family
OR
religious holidays were
more casual, there weren't
a lot of strong feelings.
really sort of
true true
6. In my family religious
holidays had special
meaning for the family.
really sort of
true true
7. In my family religious OR
holidays were traditional with
activities passed down thru
generations.
really sort of
true true
8. In my family there
was little planning or
discussion around
religious holidays.
In my family
sort of
religious holidays
true
were times of strong
feelings and emotions.
OR In my family
religions holidays
were more just like
a day off.
really
true
sort of
true
really
true
sort of
true
really
true
OR In my family there
sort of
was a lot of planning true
and discussion around
religious holidays.
really
true
138
In my family
religious holiday
activities shifted
across the years.
CULTURAL AND ETHNIC TRADITIONS
Think of some cultural and ethnic traditions related to your heritage or background
culture that your family observed when you were growing up. Some examples may be
baptisms, naming ceremonies, festivals, wakes, and funerals. Also, the celebration of
special holidays such as Cinco de Mayo, Kwanza, and St. Patrick's Day.
Choose the statement that is most like your family
when you were growing up. Then circle whether it
is "really true" or "sort of true" for your family.
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
really sort of
true true
1. My family rarely
OR
observed cultural
traditions.
2. In my family there
OR
were set jobs for people to
do during these events.
My family regularly sort of
really
observed cultural
true
true
traditions.
In my family there
sort of
really
were no set jobs for true
true
people to do during
these events.
3. In my family there
OR In my family there
sort of really
was flexibility in the ways
were set routines and
true true
these events were observed. everyone knew what to
expect during these events.
4. In my family every
OR In my family only a
sort of really
one was expected to
few members were in
true true
attend these events.
attendance to represent the family.
really sort of
true true
5. In my family these
OR
events were very emotional
and family members
experienced strong emotions.
really sort of
true true
6. In my family these
events didn't have much
meaning for the family.
really sort of
true true
7. In my family these
events have stayed
pretty much the same
across generations.
8. In my family there
OR
was little planning on the
part of the family; details
were left to people outside
the family.
really sort of
true true
In my family these sort of
really
events were more
true
true
casual events with family
members less emotionally involved.
OR In my family these sort of
events took on a
true
special meaning and
significance.
OR In my family these sort of
events were flexible true
and changed over the years.
really
true
In my family there
sort of
was a lot of planning true
and discussion among family
members.
really
true
really
true
Finally, if you have either good or bad family practices, rituals, or traditions that were not
addressed in this questionnaire, please describe them on the back of this page.
139
APPENDIX B
CULTURE-FREE SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY
140
CULTURE-FREE SELF-ESTEEM INVENTORY
Please fill in the square completely for each question. If the question describes how you
usually feel, fill in the square in the "yes" column. If the question does not describe how
you usually feel, fill in the square in the "no" column.
Yes No
1. Do you have only a few friends?………….................................………
2. Are you happy most of the time? ...............................................….……
3. Can you do most things as well as others?.................………………….
4. Do you like everyone you know?.................................................………
5. Do you spend most of your free time alone?…................………………
6. Do you like being a male? / Do you like being a female?..................…..
7. Do most people you know like you?....................................…………….
8. Are you usually successful when you attempt important tasks or
assignments? ..…………………………………………………………..
9. Have you ever taken anything that did not belong to you?……...........
10. Are you as intelligent as most people?.................................…………
11. Do you feel you are as important as most people?.............................
12. Are you easily depressed?........................................................………
13. Would you change many things about yourself if you could?…………
14. Do you always tell the truth?................................................…………...
15. Are you as nice looking as most people?…………….............................
16. Do many people dislike you?...............................................……………
17. Are you usually tense or anxious?......................................................
18. Are you lacking in self-confidence?...................................................…
19. Do you gossip at times?......................................................................
20. Do you often feel that you are no good at all?.......................................
21. Are you as strong and healthy as most people?...........………………..
22. Are your feelings easily hurt?.............................................................…
23. Is it difficult for you to express your views or opinions on things?…...
24. Do you ever get angry?.................................................................…….
141
25. Do you often feel ashamed of yourself?...................…………………..
26. Are other people generally more successful than you are?................
27. Do you feel uneasy much of the time without knowing why?………..
28. Would you like to be as happy as others appear to be?……………….
29. Are you ever shy?........................................................................……..
30. Are you a failure?.......................................................................………
31. Do people like your ideas?.....................................................................
32. Is it hard for you to meet new people?.......................…………………
33. Do you ever lie?...................................................................…………..
34. Are you often upset about nothing?…………..............................…….
35. Do most people respect your views?....................................………….
36. Are you more sensitive than most people?……………………………
37. Are you as happy as most people?..................................……………..
38. Are you ever sad?.......................................................…………………
39. Are you definitely lacking in initiative?.......................………………..
40. Do you worry a lot?..............................................................…………..
142
APPENDIX C
RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND AND BEHAVIOR
143
RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND AND BEHAVIOR
1. Which of the following best describes you at the present time? (Check one)
_______ Atheist
• I do not believe in God.
_______ Agnostic
• I believe we can't really know about God.
_______ Unsure
• I don't know what to believe about God.
_______ Spiritual
• I believe in God, but I'm not religious.
_______ Religious
• I believe in God and practice religion.
2. For the past year, how often have you done the following? (Circle one number for
each line)
Twice
/
month
Once
/
week
Twice
/
week
Almost
daily
More
than
once
/ day
Never
Rarely
Once
/
month
Thought about
God
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Prayed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Attended worship
service
Read-studied
scriptures, holy
writings
Had direct
experiences of
God
3. Have you ever in your life:
Never
Yes, in the past,
but not now
Yes, and I still
do
Believed in God?
1
2
3
Prayed?
1
2
3
Attended worship services regularly?
1
2
3
Read scriptures or holy writings regularly?
1
2
3
Had direct experiences of God?
1
2
3
144
APPENDIX D
FAMILY INFORMATION INVENTORY
145
FAMILY INFORMATION INVENTORY
Please answer the following questions about yourself and the family you grew up in.
Circle the answer that best fits you and your family.
1. How old are you? ___________________
2. What is your sex? 1 = Male 2 = Female
3. What is the last grade you completed in school? ___________________
4. In general, did you like school? 1 = yes 2 = no
5. What kind of grades did you typically get in school? (Choose one)
1 = excellent (all As)
2 = good (As and Bs)
3 = average (Bs and Cs)
4 = poor (Ds and Fs)
5 = failing (Fs)
6. Did you grow up with both of your natural parents living at home? 1 = yes
If you answered yes to this question, skip to question number 9.
2 = no
7. If you did not live with your natural parents, who did you live with?
1 = mother only
2 = father only
3 = mother and stepfather
4 = father and stepmother
5 = grandmother
6 = grandparents
7 = aunt
8 = aunt and uncle
9 = other (please explain)______________________________________
8. If you thought your father would disapprove of something you wanted to do, how
often would you go ahead and do it anyway?
1 = never/rarely
2 = occasionally
3 = frequently
4 = doesn't apply
9. If you thought your mother would disapprove of something you wanted to do, how
often would you go ahead and do it anyway?
1 = never/rarely
2 = occasionally
3 = frequently
4 = doesn't apply
10. What was your father's job?
1 = worker
2 = temporary worker
3 = state official
146
4 = farmer
5 = own business
6 = other
7 = Unemployed
11. Was your family ever on welfare when you were growing up? 1 = yes 2 = no
12. In what type of community did you live while growing up?
1 = the country
2 = a small town
3 = a city
4 = the suburbs
5 = a large metropolitan area
6 = my family lived in several different places
13. How would you describe the crime in the neighborhood in which you grew up?
1 = little or no crime
2 = some crime
3 = a great deal of crime
14. Has anyone in your family committed a crime? 1 = yes
2 = no
If you answered yes to this question, skip to question number 17.
15. Check any of the following that has happened to your father.
1 = arrested
2 = placed on probation
3 = imprisoned
4 = none of the above
16. Check any of the following that has happened to your mother.
1 = arrested
2 = placed on probation
3 = imprisoned
4 = none of the above
17. Were you a member of a gang? 1 = yes 2 = no
18. Of the friends you hung around with, how many ever committed a crime?
1 = none
2 = a few 3 = some 4 = most
19. When you were growing up, did your parents spend time with you in leisure
activities away from home (picnics, movies, sports, shopping, etc.)
1 = Never or rarely
2 = Once a month or less
3 = Several times a month
4 = About once a week
5 = Several times a week
6 = Almost everyday
147
20. When you were growing up, did your parents spend time with you at home working
on a project or playing together?
1 = Never or rarely
2 = Once a month or less
3 = Several times a month
4 = About once a week
5 = Several times a week
6 = Almost everyday
21. When you were growing up, did your parents spend time with you having private
talks?
1 = Never or rarely
2 = Once a month or less
3 = Several times a month
4 = About once a week
5 = Several times a week
6 = Almost everyday
22. When you were growing up, did your parents spend time with you attending parentteacher organization meetings or other school activities?
1 = Never or rarely
2 = Once a month or less
3 = Several times a month
4 = About once a week
5 = Several times a week
6 = Almost everyday
23. When you were growing up, did your parents spend time with you attending church
activities?
1 = Never or rarely
2 = Once a month or less
3 = Several times a month
4 = About once a week
5 = Several times a week
6 = Almost everyday
24. When you were growing up, did your parents spend time with you with team sports
or youth athletic clubs?
1 = Never or rarely
2 = Once a month or less
3 = Several times a month
4 = About once a week
5 = Several times a week
6 = Almost everyday
148
25. Check all of the following activities you participated in when you were between the
ages of 12 and 18?
1 = none
2 = sports
3 = school activities like Band, Cheerleading, Drama, Choir
4 = civic organizations/volunteer activities (Scouts)
5 = church groups
6 = dance/ballet/twirling/gymnastics
7 = other, please explain ____________________
26. How often did you participate in these activities?
1 = never/rarely
2 = once a month or less
3 = several times a month
4 = about once a week
5 = several times a week
6 = almost everyday
27. Were you ever employed or did you work for pay between the ages of 12 and 18?
1 = yes
2 = no
If your answer is yes, how many hours per week did you usually work?
1 = less than 6 hour per week
5 = 31-40 hours per week
2 = 6-10 hours per week
6 = more than 40 hours per week
3 = 11- 20 hours per week
7 = part-time summer only
4 = 21-30 hours per week
8 = full-time summer only
149
BEHAVIORS
Write in the number of times you committed the following behaviors before your 18th
birthday. If you did not commit the behavior, put a 0 in the blank and go to the next
question. If you committed a behavior, write in the number of times you committed it. If
you were not caught, go to the next question. If you were caught, circle all of the actions
that were taken.
How many times?
_____
1. Run away from home.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0 =none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)________________________________________
_____
2. Taken a car for a ride without the owner's permission.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
3. Used marijuana.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
4. Broken into and entered a home, building, or store.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
5. Used drugs or other chemicals to get high for kicks.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
6. Engaged in a fistfight with another person.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
7. Bought or drunk beer, wine or other alcohol without your parent's
permission. Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
150
_____
8. Used a weapon in a fight with another person.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
9. Taken something valued at more than 20 YTL but less than 750
YTL.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
10. Taken something of larger value (more than 750 YTL).
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
11. Driven a car while strongly under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
12. Used force or a weapon to take money or something of value from
another person.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
13. Destroyed or damaged someone else's property on purpose.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____ 14. Missed school without permission of parents.
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
_____
15. Gone hunting or fishing without a license (or violated other game laws).
Circle all that occurred to you if you were caught:
0=none 1=sent home 2=arrested 3=jailed 4=probation 5=imprisoned
6=other (please explain)_______________________________________
151
REFERENCES
Adams, B. N. (1995). The family: A sociological interpretation (5th ed.). New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Agnew, R. (1985). Social control theory and delinquency: A longitudinal test [Electronic
version]. Criminology, 23, 47-61.
Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency
[Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28(2), 126156.
Agnew, R. (2003). The interactive effects of social control variables on delinquency. In
C. L. Britt & M. R. Gotfredson (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory: Control
theories of crime and delinquency, (v. 12, pp. 53-77). New Bruswick: Tansaction
Publishers.
Akers, R. L. & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation,
and application (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.
Alexander, J. (2004). Cultural pragmatics: Social performance between ritual and
strategy [Electronic version]. Sociological Theory, 22(4), 527-573.
Amoateng, A. Y., & Bahr, S. J. (1986). Religion, family, and adolescent drug use
[Electronic version]. Sociological Perspective. 29(1). pp.53-76.
Amodeo, M., & Griffin, M. (1997). Parental alcoholism and other family disruptions:
Adult outcomes among sisters [Electronic version]. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 67, 585-593.
Anderson, J. C., & Dyson, L. (2002). Criminological theories: Understanding crime in
America. Lanham: University Press of America.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach [Electronic version]. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices, and
high school completion [Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 56,
309-320.
Badham, R., Garrety, K., Morrigan, V., Zanko, M., & Dawson, P. (2003). Designer
deviance: Enterprise and deviance in culture change programmes [Electronic
version]. Organization, 10, 707-730.
152
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs
in organizational research [Electronic version]. Organizational Research
Methods, 1, 45-87.
Ball, J. C., Ross, A., & Simpson, A. (1964). Incidence and Estimated Prevalence of
Recorded Delinquency in a Metropolitan Area [Electronic version]. American
Sociological Review, 29(1), 90-93.
Barros, A. J. & Hirakata, V. N. (2003) Alternatives for logistic regression in crosssectional studies: An empirical comparison of models that directly estimate the
prevalence ratio. BMC Medical Research Methodology. Retrieved May 1, 2007
from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&
pubmedid=14567763
Bartollas, C. & Miller, S.J. (2001). Juvenile justice in America (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Battle, J. (1992). Culture free self-esteem inventories (2nd ed.). Austin: Pro-ed.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high selfesteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier
lifestyles? [Electronic version]. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1),
1-44.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T., & Tice, D. (1993). When ego threats lead to
selfregulations failure: Negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 141-156.
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D., & Hutton, D. (1989). Self presentational motives and
personality differences in self esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 547-579.
Baxter, L. A., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of family communication patterns and
the enactment of family rituals [Electronic version]. Western Journal of
Communication, 60, 254-268.
Benda, B. B. (2002). Religion and violent offenders in boot camp: A structural equation
model [Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1),
91-121.
Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: The relationship after
considering family and peer influences [Electronic version]. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 36(1), 81-92.
Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (2001). Are the effects of religion on crime mediated,
moderated, and misrepresented by inappropriate measures? Journal of Social
Service Research, 27, 57-86.
153
Benn, J. L., & Garbarino, J. (1992). The ecology of human development. In J. Garbarino
(Ed.), Children and families in the social environment (2nd ed., pp. 99-130). New
York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling
[Electronic version]. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78-117.
Berger, P. (1963). Invitation to Sociology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday-Anchor.
Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). The effects of family disruption on social mobility
[Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 58, 97-109.
Biro, F. M., Striegal-Moore, R. H., Franko, D. L., Padgett, J., & Bean, J. (2006). Selfesteem in adolescent females. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 1-6.
Blyth, D. A., & Traeger, C. M (1983). The self-concept and self-esteem of early
adolescents [Electronic version]. Theory into Practice, 22(2), 91-97.
Bossard, J., & Boll, E. (1950). Ritual in family living. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Bowen, M. (2003). One family's story: A primer on Bowen theory. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown Family Center.
Bradshaw, J. (1988). The family: A revolutionary way of self-discovery. Deerfield Beach:
Health Communications.
Brandon, T. H., Herzog, T. A., Irvin, J. E., & Gwaltney, C. J. (2004). Cognitive and social
learning models of drug dependence: Implications for the assessment of tobacco
dependence in adolescents [Electronic version]. Addiction, 99(1), 51-77.
Breaking New Ground for Youth at Risk. (1990). Program summaries: OSAP technical
report 1 [Electronic version]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1996). Parental religiosity, family processes, and
youth competence in rural, two-parent African American families [Electronic
version]. Developmental Psychology, 32, 696-706.
Brody, G.H., & Flor, D.L. (1997). Maternal psychological functioning, family processes,
and child adjustment in rural, single-parent, African American families [Electronic
version]. Developmental Psychology, 33, 1000-1011.
Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process. Newbury Park: Sage.
Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. M. (1994). Sibship size and sibling delinquency
[Electronic version]. Deviant Behavior, 15, 45-61.
154
Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In
R. Park., E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.). The city: Suggestions for
investigation of human behavior in the urban environment (pp. 99-130). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Burgess, E. W. (1926). The family as a unity of interacting personalities. The Family, 7,
3-9.
Burkett, S. R. (1993). Perceived parents’ religiosity, friends’ drinking, and hellfire: A
panel study of adolescent drinking [Electronic version]. Review of Religious
Research, 35(2), 134-154.
Burnard, P., Hebden, U., & Edwards, D. (2001). Self-esteem and student nurses: An
account of a descriptive study [Electronic version]. Nursing and Health Sciences,
3, 9-13.
Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency:
Problems and prospects [Electronic version]. Criminology, 26, 519-551.
Bynner, J., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1981). Self-esteem and delinquency
revisited [Electronic version]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10, 407-444.
Bynum, E. G. (2000). Self-concept and violent delinquent offenders: An exploratory
study of urban African-American adolescent males. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The American University.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., & Sparling, J. J.
(2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian
project [Electronic version]. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.
Center for Family and Demographic Research, (2006). Annotated output - SPSS:
Logistic regression. Retrieved November 22, 2007 from:
http://www.bgsu.edu/downloads/cas/file36811.pdf
Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Identity construction: New issues, new directions [Electronic
version]. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 385-409.
Chadwick, B. A., & Top, B. L. (1993). Religiosity and delinquency among LDS
adolescents [Electronic version]. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
32(1), 51-67.
Chambliss, B., Doyle, A., & Reeves, J. (2004). Panel discussion on deviance [Electronic
version]. The Velvet Light Trap, 53, 4-9.
Cheal, D. (1991). Family and the state of theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Chris, B., Paul, J. B., & Scott, D. (1996). Reclaiming deviance as a unique course from
criminology [Electronic version]. Teaching Sociology, 24(3), 316-320.
155
Christian, L. G. (2006). Understanding families: Applying family systems theory to early
childhood practice [Electronic version]. Beyond the Journal, January 2006, 1-8.
Clarke, L., Beeghley, L., & Cochran, J. K. (1990). Religiosity, social class, and alcohol
use: An application of reference group theory [Electronic version]. Sociology
Perspectives, 33(2), 201-218.
Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Glencoe: Free Press.
Collins, L. H. (2002). Self-esteem inoculation: Protecting girls from the effects of sexism.
In L. H. Collins, M. R. Dunlap, & J. C. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for
feminist psychology (pp. 139-167). New York: Praeger.
Compan, E., Moreno, J., Ruiz, M. T., & Pascual, E. (2002). Doing things together:
Adolescent health and family rituals [Electronic version]. Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 56(2), 89-95.
Conklin, J. E. (1998). Criminology (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Connors, G. J., Tonigan, J. S., & Miller, W. R. (1996). Measure of religious background
and behavior for use in behavior change research [Electronic version].
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10, 90-96.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner
Costello, B. J., & Dunaway, R. G. (2003). Egotism and delinquent behavior [Electronic
version]. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 572-590.
Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (1999). Criminological theory past to present: Essential
readings. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
DeMelo, D. M. (1999). Criminological theory. Retrieved November 22, 2007 from:
http://www.wku.edu/~john.faine/soc332/diane.pdf
Denham, S. A. (2002). Family routines: A structural perspective for viewing family health
[Electronic version]. Health Transitions Advances in Nursing Science, 24(4), 6074.
Dobbin, S. A., Gatowski, S. I., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., Dahir, V., & Richardson,
J. T. (2001). Surveying difficult populations: Lessons learned from a national
survey of state trial court judges [Electronic version]. The Justice System Journal,
22 (3), 277-314.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York:
Oxford University Press.
156
Dubin, R., & Dubin E. R. (1965). Children's social perceptions: A review of research
[Electronic version]. Child Development, 36(3), 809-838.
Dudley, R. L., Mutch, P. B., & Cruise, R. J. (1987). Religion, faith and drug use among
Seventh-Day Adventist youth in North America [Electronic version]. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 26(2), 218-233.
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide: A study in sociology. (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson,
Trans.) New York: Free Press.
Einstadter, W., & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: An analysis of its underlying
assumptions (2nd ed.). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Ellis, L., & Peterson, J. (1995). Crime and religion: An international comparison among
thirteen industrial nations [Electronic version]. Personal and Individual
Differences, 20(6), 761-768.
Emler, N. (2001). Self-esteem: The costs and causes of low self-worth [Electronic
version]. Layerthorpe: York Publishing Services.
Emmett, G. J. (2000). Family rituals and resilience: Relationship among measures of
religiosity, openness to experience, and trait anxiety. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of North Texas.
Empey, L. T., & Lubeck, S. G. (1979). Explaining delinquency. Lexington: D. C. Heath.
Erguder, U., Esmer, Y., & Kalaycioglu, E. (1991). Türk toplumunun degerleri [Values of
Turkish Society]. Istanbul: TUSIAD.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Farrington, D. P. (1992). Juvenile delinquency. In J. C. Coleman (Ed.), The School
Years: Current issues in the socialization of young people (2nd ed., pp. 123-164).
London: Routledge.
Farrington, D. P. (1992a) Criminal career research in the United Kingdom [Electronic
version]. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 521-536.
Farrington, D. P. (2000). Explaining and preventing crime: The globalization of
knowledge [Electronic version]. Criminology, 38(1), 1-24.
Farrington, D. P. (2006). Childhood risk factors and risk-focussed prevention. Retrieved
November 22, 2007, from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/events/poverty-socialexclusion/documents/childhood-risk-factors.pdf
Farrington, D. P., Barnes, G., & Lambert, S. (1996). The concentration of offending in
families [Electronic version]. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 47-63.
157
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of crime. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Featherstone, R., & Deflem, M. (2003). Anomie and strain: Context and consequences
of Merton’s two theories [Electronic version]. Sociological Inquiry, 73, 471-489.
Felson, R. B., & Zielinski, M. A. (1989). Children's self-esteem and parental support
[Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51(3), 727-735.
Ferguson, D. M., Swain, C., & Horwood, L. J. (2004). How does childhood economic
disadvantage lead to crime? [Electronic version]. Journal of Childhood
Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 956-966.
Ferree, M. M., & Hall, E. J. (2000). Gender stratification and paradigm change
[Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 475-481.
Feuchtwang, S. (2007). On religious ritual as deference and communicative excess
[Electronic version]. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13, 57-72.
Fiese, B. H. (1992). Dimensions of family rituals across two generations: Relation to
adolescent identity [Electronic version]. Family Process, 31, 151-162.
Fiese, B. H. (1993). Family rituals in alcoholic and nonalcoholic households: Relations
to adolescent health symptomatology and problem drinking [Electronic version].
Family Relations, 42(2), 187-192.
Fiese, B. H., Hooker, K. A., Kotary, L., & Schwangler, J. (1993). Family rituals in the
early stages of parenthood [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 55, 633-642.
Fiese, B. H., & Kline, C. H. (1993). Development of the family ritual questionnaire: Initial
reliability and validation studies [Electronic version]. Journal of Family
Psychology, 6, 290-299.
Fiese, B. H., Thomas J. T., Douglas, M., Josephs, K., Poltrock, S., & Baker, T. (2002). A
review of 50 years of research on naturally occurring family routines and rituals:
Cause for celebration? [Electronic version]. Journal of Family Psychology, 16,
381-390.
Fiese, B. H., & Tomcho, T. J. (2001). Finding meaning in religious practices: The
relation between religious holiday rituals and marital satisfaction [Electronic
version]. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(4), 597-609.
Fiese, B. H., & Wamboldt, F. S. (2000). Family routines, rituals, and asthma
management: A proposal for family based strategies to increase treatment
adherence. Families, Systems, and Health, 18, 405-418.
158
Fingerman, K., & Bermann, E. (2000). Applications of family systems theory to the study
of adulthood [Electronic version]. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 51(1), 5-29.
Flanagan, T., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). (1990). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics:
1989 [Electronic version]. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Freeman, N. K. (2007). Preschoolers’ perceptions of gender appropriate toys and their
parents’ beliefs about genderized behaviors: Miscommunication, mixed
messages, or hidden truths? [Electronic version]. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 34(5), 357-366.
Freiheit, S. R., Sonstegard, K., Schmitt, A., & Vye, C. (2006). Religiosity and spirituality:
A psychometric evaluation of the Santa Clara strength of religious faith
questionnaire [Electronic version]. Journal Pastoral Psychology, 55(1), 27-33.
Fritsche, I. (2002). Account strategies for the violation of social norms: Integration and
extension of sociological and social psychological typologies [Electronic version].
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(4), 371-394.
Garbarino, J., & Abramowitz, R. H. (1992). The ecology of human development. In
Garbarino, J. (Ed.), Children and families in the social environment (2nd ed., pp.
11-131). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Garson, D. (2006). Logistic regression. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/logistic.htm
Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & McDuff, P. (2005). Youth gangs, delinquency
and drug use: A test of selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses
[Electronic version]. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(11), 11781190.
Geismar, L. L., & Wood, K. (1986). Family and delinquency. New York: Human
Sciences Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction rituals. Garden City: Anchor Books.
Golcuklu, F. (1962). Türkiye’de çocuk suçlulugu hakkinda bir arastirma. [A research on
delinquency in Turkey]. Ankara: Sevinç.
Golub, A., Johnson, B., Taylor, A., & Liberty, H. (2002). The validity of arrestee's selfreports: Variations across questions and persons. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 477502.
Goode, W. J. (1963). World revolution and family patterns. New York: Free Press.
Goode, E. (Ed.). (1996). Social deviance. Boston: Ally and Bacon
159
Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994): Moral panics: The social construction of deviance.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1994). Aggression. In M. R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi
(Eds.), The Generality of Deviance (pp. 23-45). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). Render unto Caesar what is
Caesar’s: Religiosity and taxpayers’ inclinations to cheat [Electronic version]. The
Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 251-266.
Hadaway, C. K., Elifson, K. W. & Peterson, D. M. (1984). Religious involvement and
drug use among urban adolescent [Electronic version]. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 23(2), 109-128.
Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. R. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control
theory of gender and delinquency [Electronic version]. The American Journal of
Sociology, 92(4), 788-816.
Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Delinquent behavior [Electronic
version]. Pediatrics in Review. 23, 387-392.
Hemenway, D. (1997). Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of
extreme overestimates [Electronic version]. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 87, 14-30.
Henggeler, S. W., & Borduin, C. M. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile
offenders and their families. In I. M. Schwartz & P. AuClaire (Eds.), Home-based
services for troubled children (pp. 113-130). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (2001). Self-control theory. In R. Paternoster and R.
Bachman (Eds.), Explaining Criminal and Crime (pp. 81-96). Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing.
Hirschi, T., & Stark, R. (1969). Hellfire and delinquency [Electronic version]. Social
Problems, 17(1), 202-213.
Hogan, H. W., & Mockherjie, H. N. (1981). Delinquency and personal vs. social controls.
Journal of Social Psychology, 224, 51-55.
Hook, T. L. (2007). The role of self-concept and narcissism in aggression. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation. University of Saskatchewan.
160
Horowitz, A. V. (1990). The logic of social control. New York: Plenum.
Howe, G. W. (2002). Integrating routines and rituals with other family research
paradigms: Comment on the special section [Electronic version]. Journal of
Family Psychology, 8, 128-140.
Hwang, C. P., & Lamb, M. E. (1997). Father involvement in Sweden: A longitudinal
study of its stability and correlates [Electronic version]. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 21, 621-632.
Insoll, T. (2004). Archaeology, ritual, religion. UK: Rutledge.
International Encyclopedia of Justice Studies, (2007). Survey of Criminal Justice.
Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://www.iejs.com/Survey_of_CJ/CH03.htm).
Ishak, S., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2007). Ensuring safety and providing
challenge: Mothers' and fathers' expectations and choices about infant
locomotion [Electronic version]. Parenting, 7(1), 57-68.
Lauritsen, J. L. (1993). Sibling resemblance in juvenile delinquency: Findings from
National Youth Survey. Criminology, 31, 387-409.
Jang, S. J., & Thornberry, T. P. (1998). Self-esteem, delinquent peers and delinquency:
A test of the self enhancement thesis [Electronic version]. American Sociological
Review, 63, 568-598.
Jensen, G. F. (1973). Inner containment and delinquency [Electronic version]. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 64(4), 464-470.
Jensen, G. F. (2003). A sociology of deviance for the 21st century: A brief introduction
[Electronic version]. In R. A. Wright & J. M. Miller (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Criminology. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
Jensen, G. F. (2003a). Social control theories. In R. A. Wright & J. M. Miller (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Criminology. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
Jessor, R., Donovan, J. E., & Costa, F. M. (1994). Problem-behavior theory and young
adulthood: Beyond methodological orthodoxy [Electronic version]. Contemporary
Psychology, 38, 898-900.
Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Li, S. D., & Larson, D. B. (2000). The “invisible institution”
and black youth crime: The church as an agency of local social control
[Electronic version]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(4), 479-498.
Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & Li, S. D. (2001). Does adolescent religious
commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency
[Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 22-44.
161
Johnson, K., & Ferguson, T. (1991). Trusting ourselves: The complete guide
to emotional well-being for women. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Johnstone, R. L. (1975). Religion and society in interaction: The sociology of religion.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Joinson, A. N., & Dietz-Uhler, B. (2002). Explanations for the perpetration of and
reactions to deception in a virtual community [Electronic version]. Social Science
Computer Review, 20, 275-289.
Kanagy, C. L., & Kraybill, D. B. (1999). The riddles of human society. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Pine Forge Press.
Kaplan, H. B. (1980). Deviant behavior and self enhancement in adolescence
[Electronic version]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 253-277.
Kaplan, H. B., Johnson, R. J., & Bailey, C. A. (1987). Deviant peers and deviant
behavior: Further elaboration of a model [Electronic version]. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 50, 277-284.
Katz, J. (1972). Deviance, charisma, and rule-defined behavior [Electronic version].
Social Problems, 20(2), 186-202.
Kazdin, A. E., Kraemer, H. C., & Kessler, R. C. (1997). Contributions of risk-factor
research to developmental psychopathology [Electronic version]. Clinical
Psychology Review, 17(4), 375-406.
Keddie, A. M. (1992). Psychosocial factors associated with teenage pregnancy in
Jamaica [Electronic version]. Adolescence, 27, 873-90.
Kelley, T. M. (1996). A critique of social bonding and control theory of delinquency using
the principles of psychology of mind [Electronic version]. Adolescence, 31(122),
321-337.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s
guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kerley, K. R., Matthews, T. L., & Blanchard, T. C. (2005). Religiosity, religious
participation, and negative prison behaviors [Electronic version]. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 44(4), 443-457.
Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of
self-esteem in psychological functioning [Electronic version]. Journal of
Personality, 73(6), 1569-1605.
Kernis, M. H, Cornell, D., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to selfesteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190-1204.
162
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B., & Barclay, L. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem
as predictors or anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 1013-1022.
Kiser, L. J. (2007). Protecting children from the dangers of urban poverty. Clinical
Psychology Review, 27(2), 211-225.
Kiser, L. J., Bennett, L., Heston, J., & Paavola, M. (2005). Family ritual and routine:
Comparison of clinical and non-clinical families [Electronic version]. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 14(3), 357-372.
Klein, H., Elifson, K. W., & Sterk, C. E. (2007). Childhood neglect and adulthood
involvement in HIV-related risk behaviors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31(1), 3953.
Kohn, M. L. (1989). Cross-national research in sociology. Newbury Park: Sage.
Krider, D. (2002). Self-esteem in young adults: The effects of parental divorce in
childhood. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/2002/krider/krider.html
Kruttschnitt, C., Heath, L., & Ward, D. A. (1986). Family violence, television viewing
habits, and other adolescent experiences related to violent criminal behavior
[Electronic version]. Criminology, 24, 235-267.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to
forming composite measures in Structural Equation Models [Electronic version].
Organizational Research Methods, 3 (2), 186-207.
Lauritsen, J. L. (1993). Sibling resemblance in juvenile delinquency: Findings from the
National Youth Survey [Electronic version]. Criminology, 31, 387-409.
Leon, K., & Jacobvitz, D. B. (2003). Relationships between adult attachment
representations and family ritual quality: A prospective, longitudinal study
[Electronic version]. Family Process, 42(3), 419-432.
Lilly, J. R. (2006). Society as insulation: The origins of control theory. Retrieved
November 22, 2007, from: http://www.sagepub.com/upmdata/13561_Chapter5.pdf
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological theory: Context and
consequences (4th ed.). California: Sage.
Lindsey, L. L., & Beach, S. (2004). Sociology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice
Hall.
163
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in
adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R.
Loeber and D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk
factors and successful interventions (pp. 86-106). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Liska, A. E. (1997). Modeling the relationships between macro forms of social control
[Electronic version]. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 39-61.
Liska, A. E., & Messner, S. (1999). Perspectives on crime and deviance. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice Hall.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review
[Electronic version]. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 68-99.
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen, W. (1998).
Antisocial behavior and mental health problems: Explanatory factors in childhood
and adolescence. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and
predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency [Electronic version].
Crime and Justice, 7, 129-149.
Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the relationship
between IQ and delinquency: Class, race, test motivation, school failure or selfcontrol? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 187-196.
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and
age of children and parents [Electronic version]. Journal Sex Roles, 15(8), 367378.
Macfie, J., Houts, R. M., McElwain, N. L., & Cox, M. J. (2005). The effect of fathertoddler and mother- toddler role reversal on the development of behavior
problems in kindergarten [Electronic version]. Social Development, 14(3), 514531.
Maney, D. W. (1990). Predicting university students’ use of alcoholic beverages
[Electronic version]. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 23-32.
Marcos, A. C., Bahr, S. J., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). Test of a bonding/association
theory of adolescent drug use [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 65(1), 135-161.
Markova, G. (2006). Every cloud has a silver lining: Positive effects of deviant
coworkers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Retrieved November 22, 2007,
from:
https://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2576/login?url=http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2587/
pqdweb?did=1126786461andsid=1andFmt=2andclientId=87andRQT=309andVN
ame=PQD
164
Marshall, D. (2002). Behavior, belonging, and belief: A theory of ritual practice
[Electronic version]. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 360-380.
McCarthy, J. D., & Hoge, D. R. (1984). The dynamics of self-esteem and delinquency
[Electronic version]. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 396-410.
McCord, J. (1977). A comparative study of two generations of Native Americans. In R.
F. Meier (Ed.), Theory and criminology (pp. 83-92). Beverly Hills: Sage
McIntosh, A., Fitch, S. D., Wilson, J. B., & Nyberg, K. L. (1981). The effect of
mainstream religious social controls on adolescent drug use in rural areas
[Electronic version]. Review of Religious Research, 23(1), 54-75.
McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty [Electronic
version]. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 873-901.
McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting and children's mental
health [Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 58, 351-366.
McLoyd, V. C. (1989). Socialization and development in a changing economy: The
effects of paternal job and income loss on children [Electronic version]. American
Psychologist, 44, 293-302.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie [Electronic version]. American
Sociological Review, 3, 672-682.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
Messina, J. J., & Messina, C. (2007). Self-esteem. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://www.coping.org/growth/esteem.htm
Middle East Technical University (2007). Online document Retrieved November 22,
2007, from: http://www.metu.edu.tr/about/misguide.php
Miles, V. E. (2001). An exploratory study of perceptions of drinking and alcoholism
among African American male collegians. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial
behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin
longitudinal study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mokhlis, S. (2006). The effect of religiosity on shopping orientation: An exploratory study
in Malaysia [Electronic version]. Journal of American Academy of Business, 9,
64-75.
Mooney, L. A., Knox, D., & Schacter, C. (1997). Understanding social problems. New
York: West Publishing Company.
165
Morgaine, C. (2001). Family Systems Theory. Unpublished manuscript. Portland State
University. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://web.pdx.edu/~cbcm/CFS410U/FamilySystemsTheory.pdf
Moss, L., & Goldstein, H. (Eds.). (1979). The recall method in social surveys. London:
University of London Institute of Education.
Myers, D. L. (2006). Boys among men: Trying and sentencing juveniles as adults.
Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Nagasawa, R., Qian, Z. C., & Wong, P. (2000). Social control theory as a theory of
conformity: The case of Asia/Pacific drug and alcohol nonuse. Sociological
Perspectives, 43(4), 581-603.
Nardi, P. M. (2006). Interpreting data: A guide to understanding research. Boston:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Storey, M., French, S. A., & Resnick, M. D. (1997). Psychosocial
correlates of health compromising behaviors among adolescents [Electronic
version]. Health Education Research, 12, 37-52.
Newson, J., & Newson, E. (1989). The extent of parental physical punishment in the
UK. London: Approach.
Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquency behavior. New York: John
Wiley.
O’Connor, T. (2005). Crime Data. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/111/111lect02.htm
Oesterreich, L. (1995). Ages and stages - Nine through eleven years old. Retrieved July
10, 2007, from: http://www.nncc.org/Child.Dev/ages.stages.9y.11y.html
Orcutt, J. D. (2004). Analyzing deviance. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://deviance.socprobs.net/Unit_1/Page_1.htm
Ozbay, O., & Ozcan, Y. Z. (2006). A test of Hirschi’s social bonding theory juvenile
delinquency in the high schools of Ankara, Turkey [Electronic version].
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 711726.
Palkovitz, R. J. (2002). Involved fathering and men’s adult development: Provisional
balances. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
166
Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, L. (2005). Handbook of the psychology of religion and
spirituality. New York: The Guilford Press.
Patchen, M. (1999). Diversity and unity: Relations between racial and ethnic groups.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Peregrine. (2001). Ritual. Retrieved February 27, 2007 from: http://www.rituals.net/
Pipher, M. (1996). The shelter of each other: Rebuilding our families. New York:
Grosset / Putnam.
Plass, P., & G. Hotaling (1995). The intergenerational transmission of running away:
Childhood experiences of the parents of runaways [Electronic version]. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 24(3), 335-348.
Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960-1990: A review and appraisal
[Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 527-542.
Paternoster, R. & Triplett, R. (1988). Disaggregating self-reported delinquency and its
implications for theory [Electronic version]. Criminology, 26, 591-625.
Pearce, L. D. & Haynie, D. L. (2004). Intergenerational religious dynamics and
adolescent delinquency [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 82(4), 1553-1572.
Perkins, H. W. (1985). Religious traditions, parents, and peers as determinants of
alcohol and drug use among college students [Electronic version]. Review of
Religious Research, 27(1), 15-31.
Piquero, A. R., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). Something old, something new: A preliminary
investigation of hirschi's redefined self-control [Electronic version]. Justice
Quarterly, 24(1), 1-27.
Plotnick, R. D. (1992). The effect of attitudes on teenage premarital pregnancy and its
resolution [Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 57, 800-811.
Polis Haber (06/29/2007). Retrieved June, 29, 2007, from:
http://www.polis.web.tr/article_view.php?aid=10971
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
general theory of crime: A meta-analysis [Electronic version]. Criminology, 38,
931-964.
Project MATCH Research Group, (1993). Project MATCH: Rationale an methods for a
multisite clinical trial patching patients to alcoholism treatment. Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 1130-1145.
Ragg, D. M. (1999). Dimensions of self-concept as predictors of men who assault their
female partners [Electronic version]. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 315-329.
167
Rappaport, R. A. (1999). Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rankin, J. H., & Kern, R. (1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Criminology,
32, 495-515.
Rebellon, C. J. (2002). Reconsidering the broken homes/delinquency relationship and
exploring its mediating mechanism(s) [Electronic version]. Criminology, 40, 103136.
Reckless, W. C. (1961). A new theory of delinquency and crime. Federal Probation, 25,
42-46.
Reckless, W. C. (1973a). American criminology: New directions. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Reckless, W. C. (1973b). The crime problem (5th ed.). Pacific Palisades: Goodyear
Publishing Company.
Reckless, W. C., & Dinitz, S. (1972). The prevention of juvenile delinquency. Columbus:
Ohio State University.
Regnerus, M. D. (2003). Linked lives, faith, and behavior: Intergenerational religious
influence on adolescent delinquency [Electronic version]. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2), 189-203.
Reid, S. T. (1997). Crime and criminology (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Reinert, D. F., & Bloomingdale, J. R. (2000) Spiritual experience, religious orientation,
and self-reported behavior [Electronic version]. The International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 10(3), 173-180.
Reiss, A. J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls
[Electronic version]. American Sociological Review, 16, 196-207.
Reiss, A. J. (1988). Co-offending and criminal careers. In M. Tony & N. Morris (Eds.),
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, (v. 10, pp. 117-170). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Reiss, A. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1991). Advancing knowledge about co-offending:
Results from a prospective longitudinal survey of London males [Electronic
version]. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 360-395.
Reiss, D. (1981). The family's construction of reality. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Richards, A., & Myers, A. (1987) Adventure Challenge as a Means of Containment, The
Bradford Papers Annual, Vol. 2 [Electronic version]. Indiana: Indiana University.
168
Ritzer, G. (1996). Sociological theory (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roberts, J. (1988). Setting the frame: Definitions, functions, and typology of rituals. In E.
Imber-Black, J. Roberts, & R. Whiting (Eds.), Rituals in families and family
therapy (pp. 3-46). New York: Norton.
Roberts, J. E. (2002). Family rituals and deviant behavior. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of North Texas.
Roberts, K. A. (2004). Religion in sociological perspective (4th ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Robins, L. N. (1979). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult outcome: Replications from
longitudunal studies. In J. E. Barret, R. M. Rose, & Gerald L. Klerman (Eds.),
Stress and mental disorder (pp. 219-235). New York: Raven Press.
Robins, L. N., West, P. A., & Herjanic, B. L. (1975). Arrests and delinquency in two
generation: A study of black urban families and their children. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 125-140.
Robins, L. N., & Wish, E. (1977). Childhood deviance as a developmental process: A
study of 223 urban black men from birth to 18 [Electronic version]. Social Forces,
56(2), 448-473.
Rohner, R. P., & Veneziano, R. A. (2001). The importance of father love: History and
contemporary evidence [Electronic version]. Review of General Psychology, 5,
382-405.
Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1978). Self-esteem and delinquency [Electronic
version]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 279-291.
Rubington, E., & Weinberg, M. S. (2004) Deviance: The interactionist perspective (9th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Russell, G., & Hwang, C. P. (2004). The impact of workplace practices on father
involvement. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th
ed., pp. 476-503). New York: Wiley.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family context of
delinquency: A new look at structure and process in a classic study [Electronic
version]. Child Development, 65, 523-540.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent
crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy [Electronic version]. Science, 277,
918-924.
169
Schuck, L. A., & Bucy, J. E. (1997). Family rituals: Implications for early intervention
[Electronic version]. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 477-493.
Schulz, P. (1999). Victim costs and consequences: A new look. Retrieved November
22, 2007, from: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/costs.shtml
Seward, R. R. (1994). Determinants of family culture: Effects upon fatherhood. In G.
Handel & G. G. Whitchurch (Eds.), The psychosocial interior of the family (4th
ed., pp. 211-226). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Seward, R. R. (2007). Impact of family culture on young adult behavior in Turkey and
the United States: Rituals, religiosity, and social statuses of the family of origin.
Unpublished manuscript. University of North Texas.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Shea, M. E., & Pritchard, M. E. (2006). Is self-esteem the primary predictor of
disordered eating? [Electronic version]. Personality and Individual Differences,
42, 1527-1528.
Shelden, R. G., & Brown, W. B. (2003). Criminal justice in America: A critical view.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sheslow D. J. (2005). The story on self-esteem. New York: ADAGE Publishing.
Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of
delinquency behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shoemaker, D. J. (2005). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of
delinquency behavior (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Short, J., & Nye, I. (1958). Extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency: Tentative
conclusions [Electronic version]. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and
Police Science, 49, 296-302.
Siegel, L. J. (2001). Criminology: Therories, patterns, and typologies (7th ed.). Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (1981). Introduction to criminal justice. St. Paul: West
Publishing.
Simcha-Fagan, O., & Schwartz, J. E. (1986). Neighborhood and delinquency: An
assessment of contextual effects. Criminology, 24, 667-699.
Simmons, J. L. (1969). Deviants. Berkeley: Glendessary Press.
170
Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., & Burt, C. H. (2005). Collective efficacy, authoritative
parenting and delinquency: A longitudinal test of a model integrating communityand family-level processes [Electronic version]. Criminology, 43(4), 989-1029.
Simons, R. L., Simons, L.G., & Wallace, L. (2004). Families, delinquency, and crime.
Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Simpson, J. E., Dinitz, S., Kay, B., & Reckless, W. C. (1960). Delinquency potential of
pre-adolescents in high-delinquency areas [Electronic version]. British Journal of
Delinquency, 10, 211-215.
Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J. L. (2005). Ecologically based family therapy outcome with
substance abusing runaway adolescents [Electronic version]. Journal of
Adolescence, 28(2), 277-298.
Sloane, D. M., & Potvin, R. H. (1986). Religion and delinquency: Cutting through the
maze [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 65(1), 87-105.
Smith, C. A., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., McCluskey, C. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., &
Weiher, A. W. (2000). The effect of early delinquency and substance use on
precocious transitions to adulthood among adolescent males. In G. L. Fox and M.
L. Benson (Eds.), Families, crime, and criminal justice (v. 2, pp. 233-253).
Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future delinquency:
Deviance amplification as selection artifact [Electronic version]. Law & Society
Review, 24(5), 1109-113.
Smith, J. R., & Brooks-Gun, J. (1997). Correlates and consequences of harsh discipline
for young children [Electronic version]. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine, 151, 451-481.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national
report [Electronic version]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stack, S., & Kanavy, M. (1983). The effect of religion on forcible rape: A structural
analysis [Electronic version]. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 6774.
Stark, R. (1996). Sociology (6th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Steinhart, D. (1996). Status offenses [Electronic version]. The Future of Children: The
Juvenile Court, 6(3), 86-99.
Stitt, B. G., & Giacopassi, D. J. (1992). Trends in the connectivity of theory and research
in criminology. The Criminologist, 17(1), 3-6.
171
Strand, K. J., & Weiss, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). Experiencing social research: A reader.
Toronto: Pearson.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1974). Criminology (9th ed.). Philadelphia:
Lippincott.
Swann Jr., W. B., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K. L. (2007). Do people's selfviews matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life [Electronic version].
American Psychologist, 62(2), 84-94.
Tang, T. L., & Reynolds, D. B. (1990). The effects of self-esteem and task perception on
goal setting, efficacy, and task performance. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from
ERIC database, no: ED320056
Taskiran, T., & Agaoglu, S. (1943). Suçlu çocuklarimiz: Ankara çocuk islah evinde bir
arastirma [Our criminal children: A research on reformatory house of children].
Ankara: Titaş.
Thomas, A. R. & Smith, P. J. (2003). Spothlight on social research. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Thompson, W. E. & Dodder, R. A. (1983). Juvenile delinquency explained: A test of
containment theory [Electronic version]. Youth and Society, 15(2), 171-194.
Thornton, W. E., James, J., & Doerner, W. G. (1981). Delinquency and justice.
Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Turk Kriminoloji Enstitusu. (1953). 974 suçlu çocuk hakkinda kriminolojik anket [A
criminological survey on 974 juvenile delinquents]. Istanbul: Husnutabiat.
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2002).
Do juvenile delinquents have high or low self-esteem? Unpublished research
paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, Savannah.
Ulugtekin, S. (1991). Hukumlu cocuk ve yeniden toplumsallasma [Criminal children and
resocialization]. Ankara: Bizim Buro.
United States Department of Justice (2004). Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook.
Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf
Vega, W. A., Zimmerman, R. S., Warheit, G. J., & Apospori, E. (1993). Risk factors for
early adolescent drug use in four ethnic and racial groups [Electronic version].
American Journal of Public Health, 83, 185-194.
172
Vernon, M., Green, J. A., & Frothingham, T. E. (1983). Teenage pregnancy: A
prospective study of self-esteem and other sociodemographic factors [Electronic
version]. Pediatrics, 72, 632-637.
Walsh, W., & Giblin, N. (1988). Family counseling in school settings. Springfield:
Charles C. Thomas.
Weber, M (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Unwin
Hyman,
Weisstein, E. W. (2007). Bonferroni correction. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BonferroniCorrection.html
Welch, M. R., Tittle, C. R., & Grasmick, H. G. (2006). Christian religiosity, self-control
and social conformity [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 84(3), 1605-1623.
Welch, M. R., Tittle, C. R., & Petee, T. (1991). Religion and deviance among adult
Catholics: A test of the "Moral Communities" hypothesis [Electronic version].
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 30(2), 159-172.
Wells, E. L., & Rankin, J. H. (1983). Self-concept as a mediating factor in delinquency
[Electronic version]. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 11-22.
Wells, E. L., & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the
impact of broken homes [Electronic version]. Social Problems, 38, 71-93.
Werner, L. J., & Broida, J. P. (1991). Adult self-esteem and locus of control as a
function of familial alcoholism and dysfunction [Electronic version]. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 52, 249-252.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. (1977). Children of Kauai. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
West, D. J. (1993). Criminal, penal, and life histories of chronic offenders. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 3, 492-523.
West, D. J. & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann.
Westfelt, L., & Estrada, F. (2005). International crime trends: Sources of comparative
crime data and post-war trends in Western Europe. In J. Sheptycki & A. Wardak
(Eds.), Transnational and Comparative Criminology, (pp. 19-48). London: Glass
House Press.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Ackley, K. A. (1997). Families of homeless and runaway
adolescents: A comparison of parent/caretaker and adolescent perspectives on
parenting, family violence, and adolescent conduct [Electronic version]. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 21, 517-528.
173
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of
family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 325-352). New York:
Plenum Press.
Wikström, P. H., & Treiber, K. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation beyond
Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime [Electronic version]. European
Journal of Criminology, 4(2), 237-264.
Wiggins, J. A., Wiggins, B. B., & Zanden, J. V. (1994). Social psychology (5th Ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Wolin, S. J., & Bennett, L. A. (1984). Family rituals [Electronic version]. Family Process,
23, 401- 420.
Worthington, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J.
W., Schmitt, M. M., Berry, J. T., Bursley, K. H., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The
religious commitment inventory - 10: Development, refinement, and validation of
a brief scale for research and counseling [Electronic version]. Journal of
Counseling Psychology. 50(1), 84-96.
Wright, B. R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived
risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, selfcontrol, and crime [Electronic version]. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 41, 180-213.
Yavuzer, H. (1981). Psiko-sosyal acidan cocuk suclulugu [Juvenile delinquency from a
psycho-social perspective]. Istanbul: Istanbul Universitesi Edebiyat Fakultesi
Yayinlari.
Yavuzer, H. (1994). Çocuk ve Suç [Juveniles and Crime] (7th ed.). İstanbul: Remzi
Kitabevi.
Yoder, K., Whitbeck, L., & Hoyt, D. (2003). Gang involvement and membership among
homeless and runaway youth [Electronic version]. Youth & Society, 4, 441-467.
Zieman, G. L. & Benson, G. P. (1983). Delinquency: The role of self-esteem and social
values [Electronic version]. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 489-500.
Zimring, F. E. (1998). American youth violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
174